Why isn't science fiction taken seriously?

**Jozanny** · 12-10-2009, 07:35 AM

There is Stanislaw Lem, of course; he is on my wish list, though I worry about getting the best translation into English. I did see both versions of Solaris, though, and to the extent that the scripts are faithful to Lem's work, his alternate worlds seem to be stand-ins for condemning ideology and questioning the usefulness of communication. This is the type of science fiction for which I keep reading, and not Star Wars. I do not really like techno-junk, and to me Verne and Wells are representative of that--though Wells, on occasion, makes relative social commentary.

I am a next generation kind of reader. You need Roddenberry, but I prefer when Berman pushes things, and Stewart gives Picard far more depth and a true moral center that Shatner could not bring to Kirk, who is your basic cowboy with a laser stand in for a six shooter.

I still watch the original series though, as the camp is a grade or two better than the Outer Limits.

**sixsmith** · 12-10-2009, 07:53 AM

I'm a keen admirer of Ballard but his best work is probably not hardcore SF.

**Jozanny** · 12-10-2009, 08:45 AM

Thanks for Ballard six. Kindle store has two titles and I also explored his author page. The only thing stopping me from buying more today is my space concerns on the device, as I can only read so much and don't want to dump too much to archive yet, though I did tuck Dracula in there for now. I have to be in the mood for Stoker, though I did find out he isn't the original source for the English vampire. I thought he was, but that started with the collections from India and then Varney in the penny novels, but alas, now I have digressed.

(sneaks away...)

**MGK** · 12-10-2009, 09:37 AM

i have a penchant for select SF, including the brilliant and inimitable Alfred Bester and the literary genius of Theodore Sturgeon, amongst others.

people who write off SF in total are close-minded and intolerant, a most despicable crime!

**CaptainHatteras** · 12-10-2009, 09:54 AM

Because there is a lot of low quality Science Fiction out there. I take Science Fiction seriously if it's a serious book. I liked almost everything by the brothers Strugatskiye, Soviet Science Fiction writers.

**The Comedian** · 12-10-2009, 10:13 AM

Of course, because the label "science fiction" is often pejorative, most of the great science fiction is re-categorized under the "literature" label to promote its difference from those novels in the "literature" section of your local Wal-Mart. The Strange Case Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Gulliver's Travels, The Jungle Book, etc. . .all deal with elements of the fantastic but are seldom labeled as "science fiction". . . .

**mal4mac** · 12-10-2009, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

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

I agree - Huxley and Orwell are not Shakespeare or Dickens. Clockwork orange is certainly sf, and Burgess is seriously serious -- look at his works on Joyce and Shakespeare.

**Red-Headed** · 12-10-2009, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by The Comedian

Of course, because the label "science fiction" is often pejorative,

It is now I suppose. 'Speculative Fiction' was an older term I believe. I believe that the term science fiction originates with Hugo Gernsback (1884-1967).

Originally Posted by The Comedian

most of the great science fiction is re-categorized under the "literature" label to promote its difference from those novels in the "literature" section of your local Wal-Mart.

Yes, probably (I had to google what a Wal-Mart was).

Originally Posted by The Comedian

The Strange Case Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Gulliver's Travels, The Jungle Book, etc. . .all deal with elements of the fantastic but are seldom labeled as "science fiction". . . .

Yes, I'm not so sure of The Jungle Book but I would definitely label The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde & Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus as sci fi. Gulliver's Travels even has the first case of mad scientists in literature I believe!

Originally Posted by mal4mac

I agree - Huxley and Orwell are not Shakespeare or Dickens. Clockwork orange is certainly sf, and Burgess is seriously serious -- look at his works on Joyce and Shakespeare.

I think all three of them could get a bit serious lol!

Originally Posted by CaptainHatteras

Because there is a lot of low quality Science Fiction out there. I take Science Fiction seriously if it's a serious book. I liked almost everything by the brothers Strugatskiye, Soviet Science Fiction writers.

I'm sure I've read some of their work. I will have to look at more, cheers.

Originally Posted by MGK

i have a penchant for select SF, including the brilliant and inimitable Alfred Bester and the literary genius of Theodore Sturgeon, amongst others.

I've only read The Demolished Man, it won the first Hugo. It is a classic. His cynical, ferocious & sceptical style is inimitable in my opinion.

Originally Posted by MGK

people who write off SF in total are close-minded and intolerant, a most despicable crime!

Definitely!

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Thanks for Ballard six. Kindle store has two titles and I also explored his author page. The only thing stopping me from buying more today is my space concerns on the device, as I can only read so much and don't want to dump too much to archive yet, though I did tuck Dracula in there for now. I have to be in the mood for Stoker, though I did find out he isn't the original source for the English vampire. I thought he was, but that started with the collections from India and then Varney in the penny novels, but alas, now I have digressed.

(sneaks away...)

The Vampyre? Colin Wilson also had a take on this, also made into a film directed by Tobe Hooper.

**Dimitra** · 12-10-2009, 09:40 PM

I have read the Dune about 5-6 times and the same for the Foundation series.It was my favourite genre as a teenager but I guess my taste has changed a bit now.However I still love and appreciate good science fiction and fantasy in general.

**Red-Headed** · 12-11-2009, 01:45 AM

Have a look at The Internet Speculative Fiction Database it just might be interesting or useful.

**TheFifthElement** · 12-11-2009, 03:35 AM

Probably the reason sci-fi isn't taken seriously is because of the whole space opera thing, which is a shame because there are a lot of good sci-fi writers out there.

I second the Ballard and Vonnegut nominations though they're both soft sci-fi. Cats Cradle is pretty darn good, as is The Drowned World, though Ballard is split between sci-fi and something else and it's the something else that is extraordinary. I just finished reading The Unlimited Dream Company and it was trippy but amazing.

Ray Bradbury is another sci-fi writer I'd recommend. And Asimov's Robot series are good. I think 'good' science fiction helps us to explore what it means to be human by putting human issues into another environment, not so close to home, which enables us to look at them more objectively. That's what's good about Asimov's robot stories - he explores what it is that makes a human being by giving sentience to non-human organisms in a manner which is hard to deny. What is life? It's a good question.

Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld series is pretty interesting to. As is The Mote in God's Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle.

I've never read anything by Philip K Dick, but if Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep wins the January elimination then I'll definitely join.

As for TV, I'm with Jozanny on the Star Trek front but the series I'd recommend above all others as EXCELLENT SCI-FI is the new series of Battlestar Galactica. It does what good sci-fi does and explores human themes in a different environment. Are the Cylons really the bad guys? Are they really machines? Is genocide ever justified, or suicide bombing? Where do you draw the line between survival and conscience? Will they ever find Earth? Oh my Gods, it's good

**billl** · 12-11-2009, 03:53 AM

Battlestar Galactica is fantastic, but a lot of people think it fell apart after the first season or two. Not everyone, of course.

For me, the TV show that is sci-fi and absolutely cutting edge that people who love modern sci-fi should check out is, without a doubt, Dollhouse. The first five episodes are pretty interesting, but not the best--perfectly watchable though if one understands that, after that, the themes and everything really gel and take off in an exploration of issues rarely encountered in fiction, and maybe quite timely...

**sixsmith** · 12-11-2009, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

Probably the reason sci-fi isn't taken seriously is because of the whole space opera thing, which is a shame because there are a lot of good sci-fi writers out there.

I second the Ballard and Vonnegut nominations though they're both soft sci-fi. Cats Cradle is pretty darn good, as is The Drowned World, though Ballard is split between sci-fi and something else and it's the something else that is extraordinary. I just finished reading The Unlimited Dream Company and it was trippy but amazing.

Yes it is the 'something else' with Ballard. I think Martin Amis described him as a 'one man genre'.

I fancy that David Mitchell could write a pretty great SF novel and it's probable that he'll try.

**TheFifthElement** · 12-11-2009, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by sixsmith

I fancy that David Mitchell could write a pretty great SF novel and it's probable that he'll try.

Oh yes, that'd be interesting. There are elements of Ghostwritten and Cloud Atlas which are sci-fi-esque.

**PeterL** · 12-11-2009, 08:53 AM

Some Science Fiction is taken seriously, but they tend to reclassify it when it is taken seriously. 1984, Brave New World, Utopia, and a large number of other Science Fiction novels have been taken seriously.