Can Science-Fiction be "great" literature?

[gsingle33]

I know, I know...all of you Neil Gaiman and JK Rowling fans have come here to vent your anger at my supposition that writers in a particular genre are incapable of producing great literature. Well, slow down a minute and hear me out.

First of all, I acknowledge that there are great writers who have written great science fiction. Orwell, Anthony Burgess, Herbert, and Tolkien are some of the ones I would put in that group. BUT, my question really boils down to whether you can classify contemporary storytellers who limit their material to space, swords, sorcery, and the like as writers of great literature.

I see it similarly to this: let's say a song writer only wanted to write songs about birthday cakes. :bday_2: He writes a few albums and people love them (hey, everybody likes birthdays, and the cakes are the best part). Has he really exhibited the skill to be considered a great song writer?

I'm posing this question under the assumption that "great" writers are considered such because a) their work offers itself to expansive interpretation and critical examination, and b) their work is more than just storytelling.

So tell me, who are these fantastic writers? But give me more than just names, anybody can do that. Tell me why they are so fantastic. Back up your statements if you really believe in them. (extra credit for quotes ;) )

[beer good]

Don't most writers limit their material to a certain time, place and technology, regardless of genre?

[Xamonas Chegwe]

There is a lot of unfair prejudice against genre fiction. It is too often seen as throwaway, pulp writing. This may have been true to an extent in the 40s & 50s, when there was a production line attitude, churning out quantity rather than quality. But even then, there were great writers sneaking in under the wire.

Kurt Vonnegut should definitely be listed among the top echelon of contemporary writers. The majority of his writing had an SF element to it (there are exceptions, Mother Night for example). Slaughterhouse 5 is right up there in my opinion. A very human tale at heart, showing the horrors of war in such a matter of fact way that the reader only realises the true enormity of what they have read on reflection. The description of 'blood-gutters' on knives & bayonettes was particularly memorable and chilling. Vonnegut uses the fantastic in his stories to highlight the absurdity and contradictions that we all live by. So it goes...

I will leave it at that for now, but I will add more later. I was going to add a similar thread myself before I was beaten to it.

Great minds think alike and fools rarely differ. :nod:

[Unspar]

There are two excellent sci-fi writers that come to mind: Kurt Vonnegut and Philip K. Dick. I don't know if I need to say much about Vonnegut because most people in this forum seem to think he's great. And though I've only read one of Dick's books, I've seen enough of the movies to know that it's not your typical science fiction. He may not deal with language in the intricate ways that most regular fiction writers do, but the ideas are what make it valid literature. He transends sci-fi in the way he explores the human condition. It's most apparent in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"--made into "Blade Runner"--where robots becoming self-aware examines the meaning of human consciousness, the existence of a soul, and the meaning of life all together. It's the universality of the ideas beyond the futuristic fantasy that make it good literature.

[RobinHood3000]

Depends on your definition of "great," I think. The same thing applies to movies. Some movies are "great" on a grand scale because they completely revolutionize the industry with originality and flair. Other movies are "great" on a personal level because they keep you entertained in spite of (or because of) their flaws.

Discussing science fiction, though, I surprised that Asimov hasn't entered the discussion yet.

[jessezzel]

Don't most writers limit their material to a certain time, place and technology, regardless of genre?
I totally agree with this because just about every genre is limited because it is catagorized into a genre. Like would a murder novel be a murder novel without a murder in it?

[crveniormaric]

SF... Well long long time ago Jules Verne was considered as Science Fiction writer but some things that he mention in his book we are using in every day life. I like to call SF authors a visionars. One great visionar is also I. Asimov. SF is not only robots, strange weapons and various flying machines; these writers are writnig also about emotions (R. Zelazny) and it's classic batlle between good and bad. Of course, there are good and not so good books, interesting and boring books but aren't we all depending of writers imagination? I'm great fan od SF and fantasy literature but I really like to read everything. The most important thing is that is interesting and good written.

[gsingle33]

Sure, I agree that there are many examples of writers using a science fiction setting to express larger ideas (Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" comes to mind). Often, they use a science fiction universe as a background so that their message is foreign enough to us as a reader and we will not immediately disregard it. (an example would be the old star trek episode with the guys who were half-white and half-black fighting the guys whose color scheme was the opposite in order to tackle race relations)

Unfortunately, I think there are far too many writers who simply rely on the cliches of the genre (good vs. evil, young nothing that rises to station of great power, etc.). Or, they try to take a new "twist" and incorporate many of these cliches into one story
(go here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/074343532X/qid=1138802453/sr=1-23/ref=sr_1_23/002-4553794-1910440?s=books&v=glance&n=283155 for an example)

If I'm missing something as I glance over people like McCaffrey, Williams, Salvatore, the above mentioned PN Elrod, and others, please clue me into it. I am just having a hard time seeing it.

[Taliesin]

Well, you are right in some things - there is quite a number of cliches.
We wrote a speculative fiction short story and a local (that means, one of Estonia's best editors and speculative fiction knowers) speculative fiction guru gave us advice if we wanted to make a career in that area. One of the things he said: if you have any dreams or thoughts of publishing in an angloamerican or russian spec-fic world, throw them away right away. Angloamerican fantasy is a very conservative genre with a conservative audience - they are typically okay with the cliches and angloamerican countries can produce on it's own. And writers in smaller countries must be more innovative and cliche-breaking to be anything (when you imagine an angloamerican reader choosing between a nonangloamerican cliche and angloamerican cliche, he will choose the angloamerican one) Nonangloamerican writers have no space in the market - they can be published or even win some minor awards, but they won't make it big. Russian speculative fiction is even more closed.

So you are right that the market is flooded with cliche fantasy. But there are some who write good stuff too.

[imaditzyreader]

rhetorical question- An author make an amazing storyabout the growing up of two people, thier lives loves and angers...another makes one about the same thing, but creates a new world, one were theyalso envision where our world is going, whatthings maybe like. which one is the great author?? just becuase one of them uses conventinal places and things, are not the two prettymuch the same??

Also I think that books like "Left Hand of Darkness" by Ursula Le Guin, the afore mentioned "Brave New World", "1984", and countless others tell a story that can only be told through this genre. They create worlds were the reader can live and they open the mind to countless other possibilites that would not normally be brought up.

Even the "bad" fantasy is just as "good" as the "bad" mysteries or the "bad" romances
(in my opinion better than some, lol)

[byucougs]

I would consider Ray Bradbury a good writer. Most of his cataloge comes in the Sci-Fi section, but he has written various other genres. Something Wicked This Way Comes is horror, Dandelion Wine is just a feel-good coming of age book. He has even written some historical-fiction (Drummerboy of Shiloh). All of his writing is worthy of a read because he is a master of the human soul. Even his sci-fi books often deal with emotion and the human heart.

[Petrarch's Love]

I don't quite follow an argument that claims an entire genre of writing is inferior because it is popular and there are a fair number of cliche books associated with that genre. Of course there are badly written books in any genre, and science fiction is no exception. There are also a number of very well written books in the genre, as several people have pointed out, and I don't see why these should be discounted because of their inferior bretheren.

Also, science fiction and fantasy are hardly new genres. Yes, writing about going into outer space is largely an innovation of the 20th century, but it is only a replacement for the uncharted territories on this planet that captured the imaginations of people in past centuries. For example, a work such as Homer's Odyssey--widely recognized as classic "literature" in the western tradition--is really the ancient version of the modern sci-fi story. It imagines a journey into uncharted territories and encounters with strange and magical people and creatures. It used to be enchanted swords; now it's light sabers. It used to be whatever was on the other side of the ocean, now it's whatever is on the other side of Mars. Sci-fi, like many other genres, produces its fair share of ho-hum reads, but it also fits in to a long standing literary tradition of mapping human stories onto unknown territories where people encounter strange new beings and fanciful technologies. Looking to something alien often helps us to define ourselves.

[crveniormaric]

I For example, a work such as Homer's Odyssey--widely recognized as classic "literature" in the western tradition--is really the ancient version of the modern sci-fi story. It imagines a journey into uncharted territories and encounters with strange and magical people and creatures. It used to be enchanted swords; now it's light sabers. It used to be whatever was on the other side of the ocean, now it's whatever is on the other side of Mars. Sci-fi, like many other genres, produces its fair share of ho-hum reads, but it also fits in to a long standing literary tradition of mapping human stories onto unknown territories where people encounter strange new beings and fanciful technologies. Looking to something alien often helps us to define ourselves.

Well, Petrarch's Love you've read my mind. Because English is not my frist language I have a problem with expresing myself. But that's exactly what I ment in my previous post. :nod:

[gsingle33]

I acknowledge that there is horrible writing in any field. Capitalism thrives on choices and since everyone wants to be the Horatio Alger of the publishing world, they toss anything and everything to the publishers, and therefore the publishers then toss anything and everything to the consumer so that maybe we'll buy it.

Sci-fi / Fantasy, as a genre, seems to be more vulnerable to this syndrome than some others (although Romance and Mystery are close behind, with Chick-lit quickly gaining ground). It has largely deteriorated into a lowest common denominator of cliche-ridden storytelling that serves little or no literary purpose or goal.

Believe me, I understand that fiction, in general, is doing the same thing, but I wanted to be more focused in my question and hopefully gain more insight into the general problem. One other thing I want to point out is that many of the books we're mentioning (1984, A Clockwork Orange, and Brave New World come to mind) aren't classified by the powers that be as scifi/fantasy.

So am I overlooking a contribution by the genre? Is there a larger prejudice at work here? I think if the latter is true, then much of the fiction in the genre works to perpetuate that prejudice and must be included in the blame. Is there any way to weed through the fan-boys and really get to the heart of this argument?

[PeterL]

I'm posing this question under the assumption that "great" writers are considered such because a) their work offers itself to expansive interpretation and critical examination, and b) their work is more than just storytelling.

So tell me, who are these fantastic writers? But give me more than just names, anybody can do that. Tell me why they are so fantastic. Back up your statements if you really believe in them.

Easily done. Poul Anderson's The Boat of a Million Years is an epic that spans millennia and shows a wide range of human activity, behavior, and thought. Do people ever change? Is it possible for humanity to change?

L. Sprague de Camp's Lest Darkness Fall questions the nature of reality and the position of the individual in the world. Whether one reads it as a story or as a philosophical work it has material for meditation. I won't go into details, so that you can have the pleasure of reading one of the best novels of the 20th century.

You might also find Roger Zelazny's The Lord of Light interesting. Are people archetypes,or are archetypes human? Are the Gods and Goddesses human or do they become something greater?

No credit unless you read and understand.

Science Fiction is simply a type of setting. Any theme that has been dealt with by any writer can become Science Fiction, if the setting is off Earth or in the future. Science is supposed to have to be of substantial importance in SF, but simply moving the setting off Earth fulfills that requirement.

[Aurora Ariel]

Interestingly, one of the first "Science fiction" works was actually Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, which was first published in 1818, and inspired by various experiments and science of the epoch. I don't have much time, to reply right now, but I have to agree with Petratch's Love, in that because a book is widely considered to be a bestseller and "popular" does not necessarily indicate that it must be somehow inferior and unworthy of one's attention. I think one can realise that cliches exist in every area, and genre stereotypes don't always reflect the quality of the particular work. There are always going to be fantastically original and innovative books spread across each genre. One of the the most thought-provoking books I read early last year was actually a highly realistic Science fiction novel, which was written by a visionary futurist and presented an account, which is result of much in depth research and serious discussions with those professionally involved in certain scientific fields, which feature heavily in the whole work and are woven effectively by the characters and fascinating theme. I learned it has (along with another by the same, though still not popularly recognised, author) been adapted for other mediums, though not widely studied as it is quite a recent publication. I have also read books by Jules Verne and H.G Wells, but must admit to reading more non-fiction, but do agree that the typical Sci-Fi book differs in style from the usual book in another genre. Many who have written highly successful and exceptionally prolific Sci-Fi works have also had some form of scientific training and studied in a choosen field before they even wrote their masterpieces. Someone like H.G Wells, and Isaac Asimov are often noted for their more strikingly simple style, though this specific approach is able to convey their ideas very well. And there are different degrees of "fantasy" where some may be envisioning the most unrealistic goals and situations. If you spilt it into sub-catagories though, I think "mythical wizards and sorcery schools " is much different to a more realist work presenting a possible account of the future, where science has heavily advanced, and technological development is significant to societal changes and improvements. I think the former is more on a par with the seriousness and likelihood of unicorns and elves suddenly floated into the atmosphere, and obviously not likely to ever occur in the future. Though this to remains a profoundly diverse genre, and the quality and scope varies.

[Panurge]

In theory, Fantasy and Science Fiction should be genres least given to stereotypes. After all, an author writing in these fields is really only limited by his or her imagination. It's ironic, therefore, that since the 'New Wave' (Moorcock etc.) much fantasy and science fiction writing seems to me to have settled into a very generic pattern. I know there are many great exceptions to this, but getting lumped into the SF/Fantasy category nowadays often hinders them in getting any serious consideration.

[Zippy]

In isolating science fiction and saying that it is more prone to bad writing than any other genre you're simply showing your distaste of the genre.

Yes there are a lot of badly written, formulaic science fiction novels. Yes there are authors that churn out rubbish simply to make a quick buck. But the same is true of any genre. Take ten books at random and at least three quarters will be indifferent or outright rubbish. Personally some genres I dislike are chick-lit, romance novels and sword and sorcery. I would sooner read the worst science fiction book before I would read the best of any of these other genres. That is not a comment on the writer's ability, but rather my own preferences and prejudices.

Science fiction is not mainstream writing. Whenever a respected or established author has written something which is clearly sci-fi, critics, and sometimes even the authors themselves, go out of their way to deny that it is science fiction (An example would be Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tail which she still denies is sci-fi). A Handmaid's Tale, 1984, Brave New World are all great works of literature. They are also science fiction books.

I take your point that the authors of the above books did not exclusively write science fiction, but very few authors stick to a specific genre and the question was 'Can science fiction be "great" literature?' not 'Can someone who writes science fiction exclusively be a "great" writer?' Don't move the goal posts by excluding Huxley and Orwell's work.

Thanks for an interesting and lively debate.

Zippy.

[Panurge]

Zippy - I agree with all those comments. It's a great shame that writers who acheive any success in the field of Science Fiction tend, as you say, to want to distance themselves from that field. You've pointed out that other genres are just as cluttered with tired, formulaic writing, which makes me wonder why it should be the case that SF in particular gets such a bad press. Anybody have any ideas?

PS. Please don't mention Margaret Atwood's tail again - how would you like it if people discussed your deformities? (teehee - what a facetious b****** I am...)

[PeterL]

Science fiction is not mainstream writing. Whenever a respected or established author has written something which is clearly sci-fi, critics, and sometimes even the authors themselves, go out of their way to deny that it is science fiction (An example would be Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tail which she still denies is sci-fi). A Handmaid's Tale, 1984, Brave New World are all great works of literature. They are also science fiction books.

I take your point that the authors of the above books did not exclusively write science fiction, but very few authors stick to a specific genre and the question was 'Can science fiction be "great" literature?' not 'Can someone who writes science fiction exclusively be a "great" writer?' Don't move the goal posts by excluding Huxley and Orwell's work.

Zippy.

I idea that high quality science fiction was different from mainstream fiction didn't happen until the 1960's. There was a distinction between the pulps and high quality fictin, but that was a matter of quality alone. Aldous Huxley wrote before the distinction developed, as did Orwell. The book of the month Club, which doesn't handle science fiction, had selections in the 1950's that were definitely SF; for example, I have a copy of C. M. Kornbluth's "Not This August" that is a BoMC edition.

[Kashkin]

There are two excellent sci-fi writers that come to mind: Kurt Vonnegut and Philip K. Dick.
I'd agree with that. And, though it's probably been asked; has the poster of this topic read any truly acclaimed science ficion works?
I'd also add Frederick Pohl to the list, and - as mentioned previously - Poul Anderson.
Science fiction is not fantasy. That seems to be unclear to some people. They really are different.
In the most basic terms, science fiction can be defined as what could happen, and fantasy as what could not. Sci-fi is traditionally characterized by advanced technology, experiences with alien beings, and explorations of new planets. Fantasy tends to revolve more around magic and quests. Science fiction pushes your imagination to the limit, but fantasy goes far beyond that.
Another view from Star Wars writer, Greg Keyes, "Science fiction is about where we may be going. Fantasy, on the other hand, is about what we will take with us."

Science fiction encompasses more than just newfound technology and space. Really, who thinks that. Honestly. It is obviously an opinion held only to rile up Trekkies. As in Brainwave (Poul Anderson), one of my favourite novels, it can challenge any aspect of human existence - in this case, the mental capacity of our species and it's limits. Science fiction is also not media for the masses. Good science fiction anyway, as was pointed out.

What's more, I hate to sound like I read whatever I'm told to, but the "Masterworks" series has - in my opinion - succeeded in choosing the best of Science Fiction. Or at least a large chunk of it.

Kashkin.
(Hi, I'm new here).

[Zippy]

the "Masterworks" series has - in my opinion - succeeded in choosing the best of Science Fiction. Or at least a large chunk of it.

I agree Kashkin. The Masterworks series is fantastic, I keep blowing my wages on them. I think I'll need to win the lottery before I can afford them all.

Zippy.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I'd like to add Brian W Aldiss to the list of greats. Especially: Non-Stop, Hothouse, Earthworks, The Dark Light Years, Greybeard, The Saliva Tree (an excellent tribute to H G Wells), Report on Probability A, and most exceptionally, Barefoot in the Head.

[Taliesin]

Science fiction is not fantasy. That seems to be unclear to some people. They really are different.

We know that. But you see, in our homeland, people usually do not discuss the subgenres of speculative fiction, so we are used to that they are discussed together and so mind can mis-read "science fiction" as "Speculative fiction" Sorry for that.

Now, thinking of some good sci-fi writers that come to mind.

Simak
Strugatski brothers
Bradbury
Asimov
Zelazny
Simmons
Martin

[Pendragon]

One thing I wish to bring up here, is wheather you label it "great litature" or not, you have these writers to thank for a good many of the things you take for granted now. A phone answering machine? Doc Savage Magazine 1930's. Cell phones? Star Trek. Personal Computers? Perry Rhodan. Going to the Moon? (H. G. Wells) Atomic submarine? Jules Verne. Transformable vehicles? (Land/water, etc) Jules Verne (Master of the World). A space-station? Tom Swift. Burroughs explored a lot of evolution. I did a term paper on this subject once and received an A+. One writer from Science Digest estimated that more than 4500 inventions were taken verbatim from Sci-Fi Books. Treat the next one with a little respect. It might have the newest scientific breakthrough written into its pages. ;)

[higley]

Ray Bradbury is a terrific writer, and I'm still annoyed that Fahrenheit 451 is not included in the classics section of my Waldenbooks...but rather only on the sci-fi shelf.

There are, I think, two types of science fiction: the first kind is the stereotypical sort that's generally dismissed, that are little more than tales with dragons and swords and aliens, with little purpose. Then there is the second type: books that use the unfamiliar concepts of space and time to explore human behavior and thinking in a different context--ala 1984, Fahrenheit 451, etc. Such books are based on the question "what if?"--"what if life were this way, how would we act?"--and are generally very revealing, even uncomfortably so. Both 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 were banned, or at least heavily censored, for a while because of the issues they raised. Sometimes science fiction, with Bradbury and Orwell and other like authors, is simply a means to the end, to reach a conclusion about humanity.

...And H.G. Wells is just cool. :D

[gsingle33]

There are, I think, two types of science fiction: the first kind is the stereotypical sort that's generally dismissed, that are little more than tales with dragons and swords and aliens, with little purpose. Then there is the second type: books that use the unfamiliar concepts of space and time to explore human behavior and thinking in a different context--ala 1984, Fahrenheit 451, etc.

I agree with you here, to an extent. First of all, the idea of using space and time to explore human behavior is an extremely good point. Part of the reason I've mentioned the books I have previously is because they (like those you mention as well) displace the reader to an unfamiliar setting in order to show some "Truth" of human existence or of flawed social structure. This is good science fiction that is worth our interaction. The point I disagree with is that the first kind (the stereotypical sort) is generally dismissed. The large groups of science fiction customers are buying these titles and spending much more time reading them than the other sort.

General Note: Again, I must reiterate that EVERY genre of fiction is largely similar. The general public reads Dan Brown and John Grisham much more than they read William Burroughs and James Joyce. I'm not explicitly attacking this specific genre, I just wanted a portal through which I (and maybe one or two other people) might understand some larger trends.

[higley]

Oops, I meant to say "dismissed" by those that are not already among the science-fiction readers crowd. Sorry :)

[AttorneyGonzo]

and I thank a God I don't believe in for that.

but A. Huxley's "Brave New World" comes to my mind and that is a literary masterpiece.

btw. @gsingle33: nice sig

[EAP]

The point I disagree with is that the first kind (the stereotypical sort) is generally dismissed. The large groups of science fiction customers are buying these titles and spending much more time reading them than the other sort.

The customers are buying those titles because they, presumably, enjoy reading them. So unless you want everyone to forgo reading for entertainment I do not see the point of your observation.

The virtues of hard sci-fi are manifold. Even if you dislike the storyline, feel the characters are bland and the social commentary non-existant/sucky, the novelty of the concept is often enough to retain the interest and at the end of day, make you feel the book was worth your time.

Most of the golden age sci-fi authors worked according to the aforementioned principle. I enjoyed many stories by the likes of Asimov, Clarke, Clement and Sturgeon which, stripped off their sci-fi core, aren't worth the pixels they occupy.

[ClaesGefvenberg]

Concerning the original thread question Can Science-Fiction be "great" literature? , my knee-jerk response is that it can.

I'm an avid SciFi fan and I prefer the written word here. That's where I get that sense of wonder: When I get caught up in good Science Fiction.
Films more often than not seem to botch the whole thing. They just cannot convey the feeling.

A few of my favourites, not necessarily in this order:

Douglas Adams - The Hitchhikers series.
Isaac asimov - The foundation trilogy and his early Robot stories.
Larry Niven - The Ringworld series.
Larry Niven & Jerry pournelle - Mote in God's Eye
Arthur C Clark - 2001, rendevouz with Rama and it's sequels.
Jules Verne - Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea and From the Earth to the Moon.
Greg Bear - Eon

/Claes

[ennison]

I like Sheckley's writing. 'The Store of The Worlds' is a classic short story regardless of genre. Vonnegut I find despicable but that's largely for his public pronouncements. His writing does nothing for me. It's geeky student stuff. Sheckley, Bradbury, Pohl, Sanders, Clements and lots of others are not restricted by genre any more than Rankin is restricted by being a crime writer.

[Guzmán]

Ive often wondered about this. I think Bradbury is a great writer, one of my favorite of his (and maybe of all time) is a short story called Caleidoscope, great stuff
. Ive read a lot by Asimov (as a kid, most of it), all the Foundation series, part of the robot series and other novels and short stories. Looking back on him i do consider him a very ingenious storyteller and very easygoing as well but i dont consider him to be a great writer in what regards language or beautyful prose.
Does anybody here know Fredric Brown? He's one of the greats, in my opinion, although I'm pretty sure most of his novels are out of print.

[Niamh]

First of all, I acknowledge that there are great writers who have written great science fiction. Orwell, Anthony Burgess, Herbert, and Tolkien are some of the ones I would put in that group. BUT, my question really boils down to whether you can classify contemporary storytellers who limit their material to space, swords, sorcery, and the like as writers of great literature.

I'm posing this question under the assumption that "great" writers are considered such because a) their work offers itself to expansive interpretation and critical examination, and b) their work is more than just storytelling.

So tell me, who are these fantastic writers? But give me more than just names, anybody can do that. Tell me why they are so fantastic. Back up your statements if you really believe in them. (extra credit for quotes ;) )

I'm going to be a bit mean and assume that you havent read much Science fiction or fantasy for that matter. Like any other genre in literature Sci fi and fantasy can both be critically examined and most of the time it can be more than just storytelling. Alot of them have warnings and hidden meaning.

For example, i read many of Terry Brooks shannara series and at first sight it looks as if it is set in a different world with elves and dwarfs etc when in fact it is set in our world thousands of years after we almost destroy ourselves. I Know your all thinking 'whats this got to do with anything?' my point is simply that he has observed what is going on in our world today, mankinds obsession with power and science and weapons and trying to be better than other nations, how religion and racism are fueling unnessessary wars even when they are not to blame. He has predicted what we will do to ourselves if we continue trying to better ourselves and trying to be the ultimate power. The only thing is he has put all this in to an fantasy book.

If These contexts had been put into a novel based in our time with a character philosophically observing the world around them, realising that hazzards we are causing the world, and that there was noway of preventing it even though they'll try, it might get classed as great literature. so why not class it as great literature in the context that it was written?

Also to single out Si Fi and say that it cant be great literature because it is set out side reality is unreasonable. no matter what you read there is an ounce of Si fi or fantasy in it. Most childrens books are based outside our reality, with sci fi or fantasy in mind,and many of them are classed as great literature. Alice in wonderland, the chronicles of narnia, to name a few.

Also i believe any novel that has any kind of dream sequance, fancy gagets used by agents etc could be slightly noted as being of a sci fi or fantasy sub-context.

Many writers of other 'genres' have delved into writing sci fi/ fantasy. they obviously think its worthy. The Irish crime fiction writer John connelly just brought out a book called 'the book of lost things' which is like an adults fairytale, and is of the fantasy genre. now in all fairness it does plagerise a lot of other works, but it is in fact very good.

Any book that takes modern ideals or politics and put forward into the future is essentially Sci fi. 1984 is great literature, it is also great Science fiction!:)

[ennison]

Well I don't know if I fully follow what my Irish friend means but I know that many science fiction writers ask 'What if?' and that is an imagination liberating question for those who have imagination and a literary ability. Many sci-fi writers take the half-completed ideas and technological developments of today and project them into a perhaps not too distant tomorrow. I mentioned Sheckley's 'The Store Of The Worlds' and I'd have to say that it is in one way a product of The Cold War but it is also challenging the reader to ask himself or herself what is the basis of a happy life, what are secret desires and how well do we value what we have. In that way sci-fi asks the same questions often as social realism except in a different guise.

[Niamh]

exactly!!! :D I think i babbled a bit too much. but you more or less got what i ment. and said it in fewer words to! well what can i say... irish- gift of the gab! Hehehe.

[juliagoolia]

Totally! I'm not a big sci/fi fan, but Ender's Game is one of my all-time favorite books.

[ben lurie]

Well if your going to argue about SciFi, you have to argue with all fiction. SciFI is not so different from fiction.

[genoveva]

Of course Science Fiction can be great literature! Below are some novels by American authors that are considered classic:

American Science Fiction Writers

Kurt Vonnegut
Cat’s Cradle (1963)
Slaughterhouse Five (1969)

Edward Bellamy
Looking Backward (1887)

William Gibson
Neuromancer (1989)

Ursula K. Le Guin
The Left Hand of Darkness (1969)

Robert A. Heinlein
Stranger in a Strange Land (1961)

Marion Zimmer Bradley
The Mists of Avalon (1979)

Octavia E. Butler
Kindred (1979)
Fledgling (2005)

Isaac Asimov
The End of Eternity (1955)

Ray Bradbury
Fahrenheit 451 (1953)
Something Wicked This Way Comes (1962)

Frank Herbert
Dune (1965)