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.

[Jozanny]

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]

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

[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...)

[MGK]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).


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).


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!


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!


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.


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.


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

Definitely!


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? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vampyre) Colin Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Vampires) also had a take on this, also made into a film directed by Tobe Hooper.

[Dimitra]

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]

Have a look at The Internet Speculative Fiction Database (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi) it just might be interesting or useful.

[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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Drkshadow03]

What is your evidence that science fiction isn't taken seriously? What is your criteria for 'taken seriously'?

[Dinkleberry2010]

I think a great deal of science fiction has been taken seriously by the literary community. I could name a hundred works of science fiction that have been accepted and studied by the so-called literary mainstream.

[Virgil]

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.

I didn't read through the whole thread so forgive me if I'm repeating. But I think Noisms is quite right.

I do think the issue comes down to (1) how creative a fixed form is and (2) how does a single work in a genre stand out when thousands of books in each of those genres are published annually?

As to point (1), to some degree each work in that genre is a replication of another, with some details changed. When a writer in a genre seems to innovate, say Ann Rice in horror, I do think she is rewarded. Is it taken seriously? Probably not, but that goes to the level of the writing.

As to point (2), when these genre books are printed at an unbelievable clip (some genre writers churning out three or four a year) they have become associated with dime novels. Actually they are dime novels, and for a more serious writer to break out from that pack is rather hard.

Now, great writers will genre form to explore ideas. Anthony Burgess comes to mind with A Clockwork Orange and William Faulkner's use of the gothic in his work.

[Noisms]

I didn't read through the whole thread so forgive me if I'm repeating. But I think Noisms is quite right.

I do think the issue comes down to (1) how creative a fixed form is and (2) how does a single work in a genre stand out when thousands of books in each of those genres are published annually?

As to point (1), to some degree each work in that genre is a replication of another, with some details changed. When a writer in a genre seems to innovate, say Ann Rice in horror, I do think she is rewarded. Is it taken seriously? Probably not, but that goes to the level of the writing.

As to point (2), when these genre books are printed at an unbelievable clip (some genre writers churning out three or four a year) they have become associated with dime novels. Actually they are dime novels, and for a more serious writer to break out from that pack is rather hard.

Now, great writers will genre form to explore ideas. Anthony Burgess comes to mind with A Clockwork Orange and William Faulkner's use of the gothic in his work.

That's all very true.

I will add that the issue has more complexity than at first glance. "Literary fiction" itself is a genre, after all, with tropes and cliches like any other. But because it is the genre of the elite, it has achieved an artificial elevation above the others - analagous to how the accent of the British upper classes, itself merely a dialect of English, has achieved status as "the best" variety of the language. (In the UK at least.)

Personally I would much rather read science fiction and fantasy novels than "literary fiction", and find that there is more innovation and talent in those genres (though also more dross).

[Virgil]

That's all very true.

I will add that the issue has more complexity than at first glance. "Literary fiction" itself is a genre, after all, with tropes and cliches like any other. But because it is the genre of the elite, it has achieved an artificial elevation above the others - analagous to how the accent of the British upper classes, itself merely a dialect of English, has achieved status as "the best" variety of the language. (In the UK at least.)

Personally I would much rather read science fiction and fantasy novels than "literary fiction", and find that there is more innovation and talent in those genres (though also more dross).

You're right, literary fiction is itself a genre. And that's why possibly only a handful of literary fiction gets to be great. They are a fixed form for the most part too. It probably does attract the better writers, though, and by "better writers" I mean skill in writing ability.

[WICKES]

Couple of thoughts. First, because those who write sci fi are more interested in science than in literature and are therefore frequently clumsy writers with a graceless, ugly prose style (?). Secondly, it is a relatively new genre which still awaits its great genius (?).

[kasie]

Couple of thoughts. First, because those who write sci fi are more interested in science than in literature and are therefore frequently clumsy writers with a graceless, ugly prose style (?). Secondly, it is a relatively new genre which still awaits its great genius (?).

Good points, Wickes - and because science moves at such a pace, the pseudo-scientific writing quickly becomes dated.

C S Lewis wrote a sci-fi trilogy in the 50s - the first title was Out of the Silent Planet - but I'd be inclined to think of them as Allegory with a sci-fi setting rather than just sci-fi.

I used to like Robert Silverberg's Lord Valentine series - but again these were more allegorical than sci-fi.

[Red-Headed]

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.

Yes I agree. It's the reason for the re-classification to respectability that I am interested in.


But because it is the genre of the elite, it has achieved an artificial elevation above the others - analagous to how the accent of the British upper classes, itself merely a dialect of English, has achieved status as "the best" variety of the language. (In the UK at least.)


Language & power are always connected, Received Pronunciation was an artificial construct of the 19th century anyway. It is interesting that it is starting to sound unfashionable.


What is your evidence that science fiction isn't taken seriously? What is your criteria for 'taken seriously'?

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.




As to point (2), when these genre books are printed at an unbelievable clip (some genre writers churning out three or four a year) they have become associated with dime novels. Actually they are dime novels, and for a more serious writer to break out from that pack is rather hard.


Yes, I agree. The first Dime Novel was published in 1868. I think that it has been difficult for sci fi to disentangle itself from this & space opera.

[Noisms]

You're right, literary fiction is itself a genre. And that's why possibly only a handful of literary fiction gets to be great. They are a fixed form for the most part too. It probably does attract the better writers, though, and by "better writers" I mean skill in writing ability.

I'd disagree with that, but only because we probably have different definitions of "writing ability". My favourite prose stylist is Raymond Carver, who I suppose is firmly in the literary fiction genre, but other than that I think the best writers in terms of technical skill - Gene Wolfe, William Gibson, China Mieville, and M. John Harrison spring to mind - are all working in other genres.

[Virgil]

I'd disagree with that, but only because we probably have different definitions of "writing ability". My favourite prose stylist is Raymond Carver, who I suppose is firmly in the literary fiction genre, but other than that I think the best writers in terms of technical skill - Gene Wolfe, William Gibson, China Mieville, and M. John Harrison spring to mind - are all working in other genres.

Hmm, I've never heard of those four writers, so i can't comment, but I do think that great writing gets recognized over time, no matter what genre they're in.

[OrphanPip]

Hmm, I've never heard of those four writers, so i can't comment, but I do think that great writing gets recognized over time, no matter what genre they're in.

The interesting thing about this post is that authors like Gibson are practically Canonical in the sci-fi genre, but completely unknown outside of certain circles. As important as Gibson and the cyberpunk movement is to modern sci-fi, I don't think he will ever be recognized as a great writer outside of his genre. Nonetheless, some authors, like Atwood and Lessing, have managed to skirt that barrier between genre fiction and "serious fiction" successfully.

I think my favorite sci-fi novel is The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin.

[Red-Headed]

I think my favorite sci-fi novel is The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin.

Good choice, my favourite of hers is The Dispossessed.


I think a great deal of science fiction has been taken seriously by the literary community. I could name a hundred works of science fiction that have been accepted and studied by the so-called literary mainstream.

I could probably name ten, maybe twenty.

[Lumiere]

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.

Yep. I agree with you here. When most people hear "sci-fi" they think of a lot of lousy Star Trek novels that you find at a used book store for two cents apiece. Not that there's anything wrong with those books, (ahem, avatar...) They have their own purpose in the broad world of literature.

In some ways, I feel like Science Fiction really embodies one of the core functions of literature: to explore strange new worlds, (no pun intended...but you probably wouldn't have gotten that pun even if it was intended, which is wasn't, but.....nevermind :goof:)

Personally, I think people are a bit too "snobbish" about literature in general. Literature does have it's contemplative merits, and there's nothing quite like reading a book that has been carefully and beautifully crafted like a true work of art, but sometimes you just gotta embrace the peasant within and read for cheap thrills. It makes you appreciate the good stuff all the more. Not all books are profound works of art, and that's ok. Books are for enjoying, and like any other art form, I think it's silly and perhaps a bit pretentious to turn your nose up at anything other than a classic or well-esteemed novel, no?

[Red-Headed]

Yep. I agree with you here. When most people hear "sci-fi" they think of a lot of lousy Star Trek novels that you find at a used book store for two cents apiece. Not that there's anything wrong with those books, (ahem, avatar...) They have their own purpose in the broad world of literature.

When I was very young I enjoyed the James Blish interpretations of many of the TV scripts.


In some ways, I feel like Science Fiction really embodies one of the core functions of literature: to explore strange new worlds, (no pun intended...but you probably wouldn't have gotten that pun even if it was intended, which is wasn't, but.....nevermind :goof:)

What? :eek: I wouldn't recognise a part of one of the most famous voice-overs in television history? (let alone one of the most famous examples of the split infinitive)

It can be an exploration of the totally strange & alien. These explorations can be psychological, political, allegorical & almost anything else however.


Personally, I think people are a bit too "snobbish" about literature in general. Literature does have it's contemplative merits, and there's nothing quite like reading a book that has been carefully and beautifully crafted like a true work of art, but sometimes you just gotta embrace the peasant within and read for cheap thrills. It makes you appreciate the good stuff all the more. Not all books are profound works of art, and that's ok. Books are for enjoying, and like any other art form, I think it's silly and perhaps a bit pretentious to turn your nose up at anything other than a classic or well-esteemed novel, no?

Plus it is very subjective. I love the novels of Dostoyevsky (who certainly flirted with sci fi with The Double & The Dream of a Ridiculous Man) but regardless of what many say, if you enjoy reading sci fi you are not considered to be reading 'serious' literature. Unless it's one of those novels that has been appropriated by the literati as a classic, such as Nineteen-Eighty-four or Brave New World.

When I was very young I had a very high reading age (a by-product of severe ADHD) & usually preferred to read books considered to be for adult readers. At about seven for instance I read Paul Brickhill's Reach for the Sky, the biography of Douglas Bader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Bader). It was one of my father's books & I read most of the books he owned. One day my grandmother gave me a copy of K.M. Peyton's North to Adventure that an uncle of mine had won at school for being a swot or something when he was young. It was written as juvenilia & probably for those nearer to my own age. In fact, although I didn't say anything to my grandmother at the time, as I thought it would be a bit 'young' or boring for me, I was genuinely grateful for all the books she gave me. Instead, I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was what it was, an adventure story aimed at young readers.

However, some sci fi breaks the mold. Olaf Stapldon was disappointed that his marvellous & incredibly philosophical novels were considered mere science fiction.

[Helga]

I love sci-fi, both books and tv/movies.. star trek books some are good some not so good. the first sci-fi I read was time machine and loved it have read a lot since then. I think they are important for so many reasons, like the philosophy of it and a different world but still something you recognise, why are adventures like harry potter more appreciated than sci-fi? I don't get it, maybe cause I love it

[Red-Headed]

why are adventures like harry potter more appreciated than sci-fi? I don't get it, maybe cause I love it

I'm waiting for the Harry Potter in Space series myself....NOT! :eek:

[mal4mac]

That's all very true.

I will add that the issue has more complexity than at first glance. "Literary fiction" itself is a genre, after all, with tropes and cliches like any other. But because it is the genre of the elite, it has achieved an artificial elevation above the others - analagous to how the accent of the British upper classes, itself merely a dialect of English, has achieved status as "the best" variety of the language. (In the UK at least.)

Personally I would much rather read science fiction and fantasy novels than "literary fiction", and find that there is more innovation and talent in those genres (though also more dross).

I disagree. Literary fiction is simply "the best" fiction. It includes books from all genres - Wells for sf, Cormac McCarthy for cowboys, detective novels from Dickens, Conrad, etc.

John Carey suggests in "The Intellectuals and the Masses" that modernists produced, or stressed, writings that would (most likely) exclude the working class who were absorbing Shakespeare, Dickens, Wordsworth, and other writers. They did this, for instance, by expecting a knowledge of Greek (or even Chinese!) in their readers, or through extreme experiments (Joyce's later works...) or a background in all the more difficult classics (Eliot's Wasteland....) or great patience with the slowest & most attenuated plots (Proust...).

Of course, the work of the modernists *might* be great literature - only appropriately trained critics can judge this - but they comprise only a specialised sub-branch of literature aimed at those with specialised knowledge and motivations. So you can't accuse literature in general of being elitist. "Treasure island" is literature and small boys of all classes can and do read that!

Note - also - dialect exists in literature. It often deviates from "received pronunciation", which genre fiction hardly ever does - it's simpler to stick to "received pronunciation", so pulp fiction flattens difference and supports the elite through distancing their readers. Working class readers of pulp don't see their dialect reflected in what they read. But they can hear their dialect in great literature. Think of Burns! His work undermines any claims to intrinsic linguistic superiority amongst the English upper crust. He's not alone. I've just read a poem of Wordsworth where he rhymes "water" with "matter", which reflects a strong Cumbrian dialect.

[dfloyd]

I believe most science fiction dosn't come up to snuff with the best of the genre. I enjoy the classics of the genre which include Verne, Wells, Bradbury etc. I have finely printed and bound books of all of these writers, but most do not compare with these examples of classic science fiction, as most books in the crime genre do not compare with Conan Doyle, Poe, and on down to the moderns such as Chandler and Hammett.

I am very particular with what books I want in my library so I have only collected those which are truly literature: War of the Wrolds, The Invisible Man, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Around the World in Eighty Days, Mysterious Island, Fahrenheit 451, and the Martian Chronicles have deserved space in my library. The same is true of many genre such as horror. I have fine books by Bram Stoker and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley on my shelves, but the mediocre of the horror genre, such as Anne Rice, I wouldn't want within five miles of my collection.

[Noisms]

I disagree. Literary fiction is simply "the best" fiction. It includes books from all genres - Wells for sf, Cormac McCarthy for cowboys, detective novels from Dickens, Conrad, etc.

I disagree with your disagreement. ;) "The best" fiction from all genres is what I would call "great fiction". (I wouldn't put Wells in that bracket by any means, or McCarthy for that matter, but that's by the by.;) )

Literary fiction on the other hand is that specific genre which sees "literary merit" and "writerliness" as goals in and of themselves. Jonathan Franzen, Zadie Smith, and Ian McEwan are examples.



Note - also - dialect exists in literature. It often deviates from "received pronunciation", which genre fiction hardly ever does - it's simpler to stick to "received pronunciation", so pulp fiction flattens difference and supports the elite through distancing their readers. Working class readers of pulp don't see their dialect reflected in what they read. But they can hear their dialect in great literature. Think of Burns! His work undermines any claims to intrinsic linguistic superiority amongst the English upper crust. He's not alone. I've just read a poem of Wordsworth where he rhymes "water" with "matter", which reflects a strong Cumbrian dialect.

The only reason I brought up dialect was because it is analagous to fiction. All dialects are equally valid expressions of a language, but a certain dialect - the Queen's English, if you will - has an artificially inflated value simply because it is associated with power and prestige.

Likewise, all genres are equally valid, but a certain genre - literary fiction, or serious fiction, or whatever you want to call it - has an artificially inflated value because it is associated with an elite education.

I wasn't really talking about dialect in fiction. It's just an analogy.

[Red-Headed]

I've just read a poem of Wordsworth where he rhymes "water" with "matter", which reflects a strong Cumbrian dialect.

Most people who have studied Wordsworth would agree with this. I have always believed that, not unlike Shakespeare also, many poets wrote in their own dialect. You can actually hear the Midland accent in Shakespeare, not unlike the strong Northern accent in Wordsworth. Other Romantic poets had interesting rhymes as well, which makes me wonder just when RP was introduced. I'm pretty sure Keats rhymes 'vase' with 'pace' & 'lace' on more than one occasion. This is not usual for most English people now, regardless of regional origin.

Sorry...I'm digressing...back to the future (sorry I mean sci fi). :lol:

[Paulclem]

The thing I like about Sci-Fi, and perhaps where some of it's merits lie, are the comments and observations it has to make upon issues current to the time of writing which are then extraplated into some often distant and alien landscape and scenario.

Wells did this with The Time Machine, which is a protest against the conditions of the working class in London. As he was writing the book, he was observing the great efforts being made to construct the London Underground. From this he envisioned the evolution of the human species into upper world adapted Eloi, and the underground adapted Morlocks - the Working classes adapted into troglodyte living. I think Wells point was that there was a danger that such poor working conditions could affect social stability, plus he had socialist leanings.

In 1984, Orwell extrapolates a vision of the austere post war 40's into a dictatorship supported by the new technology that was being developed. At that time, Hitler and Mussolini had been defeated, but Mao, Stalin and Franco were still at large, and employing repressive methods and torture.

Iain M Banks novels look at a highly advanced civilisation - The Culture. The Culture helps and interferes with developing civilisations on a wide variety of planets through a special unit called First contact that places agents within those alien civilisations to steer them to a perceived desirable outcomes/ civilisational models. It has been claimed that these have parallels drawn with a technologically advanced, fairly liberal West that feels it has to interfere in the affairs of other countries.

I think these novels, and others like Brave New World ask interesting and difficult questions of society, often when telling a great story.

[Drkshadow03]

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.

Perhaps. It's hard to get into people's heads. But she did win it eventually, didn't she? The problem as I always point out in these discussions is the fabled literati conspiracy of ivory tower professors really isn't the unified group people imagine.

There are respectable literary professors and people with Ph. D.s studying Science fiction (hundreds of them), there are universities courses given in genre fiction, there are peer-reviewed scholarly journals dedicated solely to Science Fiction.

I would agree that there are some professors who don't seem to want to give Sci-fi the time of day, but I think it's a dubious claim to simply say outright that nobody takes Sci-fi seriously. There are plenty of people, including professors that do.

[Red-Headed]

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.

Perhaps.

It's also what she claims.


It's hard to get into people's heads. But she did win it eventually, didn't she? The problem as I always point out in these discussions is the fabled literati conspiracy of ivory tower professors really isn't the unified group people imagine.

I don't imagine or even believe in any fabled litarati ivory tower conspiracies anyway, you must have me confused with someone else. I just think that as a whole the term 'science fiction' has a different semiotic connotation to something like 'romanticism' or 'paradigmatic realism' or any other literary semiotic signifier.


There are respectable literary professors and people with Ph. D.s studying Science fiction (hundreds of them), there are universities courses given in genre fiction, there are peer-reviewed scholarly journals dedicated solely to Science Fiction.

Yes, you forgot about the sci fi degree course, reputedly the first in the world, at Birmingham Polytechnic in the 1970s. Don't forget the highly acclaimed academic work The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction edited by Peter Nicholls (First published 1979).

I stand by what I say, as a whole, the literary community doesn't take sci fi particularly that seriously as a genre. Ivory towers or no.


I would agree that there are some professors who don't seem to want to give Sci-fi the time of day,


but I think it's a dubious claim to simply say outright that nobody takes Sci-fi seriously.

When did I state that nobody takes it seriously at all? Refresh my memory, feel free to quote me.


There are plenty of people, including professors that do.

Mark Adlard
John Brossnan
John Clute
Malcolm J. Edwards
John Foyster
Jon Gustafson
Jim Harmon
Maxim Jakubowski
David Ketterer
Colin Lester
Robert Louit
Alan Myers
Frank H. Parnell
David Pringle
Peter Roberts
Takumi Shibano
Brian Stableford
Tony Sudbury
Darko Suvin
Susan Wood

Are just a few of the academics who do.


I'm not sure what your point is exactly.

[Red-Headed]

The thing I like about Sci-Fi, and perhaps where some of it's merits lie, are the comments and observations it has to make upon issues current to the time of writing which are then extraplated into some often distant and alien landscape and scenario.

I like the 'allegorical' form of science fiction as well, but I think that it has, or can, have much more to say as a form.


Wells did this with The Time Machine, which is a protest against the conditions of the working class in London. As he was writing the book, he was observing the great efforts being made to construct the London Underground. From this he envisioned the evolution of the human species into upper world adapted Eloi, and the underground adapted Morlocks - the Working classes adapted into troglodyte living. I think Wells point was that there was a danger that such poor working conditions could affect social stability, plus he had socialist leanings.

Don't forget his theories on eugenics that are also promulgated in works like The Time Machine.


In 1984, Orwell extrapolates a vision of the austere post war 40's into a dictatorship supported by the new technology that was being developed. At that time, Hitler and Mussolini had been defeated, but Mao, Stalin and Franco were still at large, and employing repressive methods and torture.

It is said that he turned the date 19(48) into 19(84). It is definitely a political allegory. If it wasn't set in an alternate future but in some unspecified country would it still be sci fi?

[Drkshadow03]

It's also what she claims.

I don't imagine or even believe in any fabled litarati ivory tower conspiracies anyway, you must have me confused with someone else. I just think that as a whole the term 'science fiction' has a different semiotic connotation to something like 'romanticism' or 'paradigmatic realism' or any other literary semiotic signifier.

Yes, you forgot about the sci fi degree course, reputedly the first in the world, at Birmingham Polytechnic in the 1970s. Don't forget the highly acclaimed academic work The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction edited by Peter Nicholls (First published 1979).

I stand by what I say, as a whole, the literary community doesn't take sci fi particularly that seriously as a genre. Ivory towers or no.

When did I state that nobody takes it seriously at all? Refresh my memory, feel free to quote me.

Mark Adlard
John Brossnan
John Clute
Malcolm J. Edwards
John Foyster
Jon Gustafson
Jim Harmon
Maxim Jakubowski
David Ketterer
Colin Lester
Robert Louit
Alan Myers
Frank H. Parnell
David Pringle
Peter Roberts
Takumi Shibano
Brian Stableford
Tony Sudbury
Darko Suvin
Susan Wood

Are just a few of the academics who do.


I'm not sure what your point is exactly.

Well, someone has done there homework. And you're right. I might be overstating what you said and creating a bit of a Strawmen/overgeneralization, you never did explicitly say "nobody" takes it seriously.

My point, though, is who exactly is this literary community? If you don't believe in the literati ivory tower "conspiracy" and you recognize that professors are studying Science Fiction and teaching courses on it, well, then who exactly is this literature community that doesn't take Science Fiction seriously then? Part of the problem is the literary communities are very niche, especially when we start talking about actual professors studying in universities. The Sci-fi professors are those professors interested in Science Fiction, while the guys studying Faulkner are those interested in American Modernism, while the professor studying contemporary lesbian novels are those interested in contemporary lesbian novels. The contemporary lesbian novel professor could also ask the same question, "Why aren't contemporary lesbian novels taken seriously by the literary community?"

So I guess to summarize all my posts up to this point, you might say my point is exactly your question to me: what is your point?

[Red-Headed]

Well, someone has done there homework. And you're right. I might be overstating what you said and creating a bit of a Strawmen/overgeneralization, you never did explicitly say "nobody" takes it seriously.

You can tell I've been thinking about this a bit can't you?


My point, though, is who exactly is this literary community?

Yes, that is a good question, I'm sorry I was a little vague on defining who exactly the literary community is. I was thinking in a much more general way. If you claim to be studying 19th century realism, 18th century French literature or Anglo-Saxon as a rule people have a general view as to what kind of a thing that you are reading, probably something a bit 'swotty'. If, on the other hand, you claim to be studying sci fi many people imagine you sitting at home reading Batman comics or something.


If you don't believe in the literati ivory tower "conspiracy" and you recognize that professors are studying Science Fiction and teaching courses on it, well, then who exactly is this literature community that doesn't take Science Fiction seriously then?

Generally, most of it. I still believe that sci fi hasn't totally escaped the association with dime novels & space opera. This is unfortunate & essentially a prejudice.



Part of the problem is the literary communities are very niche, especially when we start talking about actual professors studying in universities. The Sci-fi professors are those professors interested in Science Fiction, while the guys studying Faulkner are those interested in American Modernism, while the professor studying contemporary lesbian novels are those interested in contemporary lesbian novels. The contemporary lesbian novel professor could also ask the same question, "Why aren't contemporary lesbian novels taken seriously by the literary community?"

I think that American Studies are relatively widely taught & it is quite a large subject inclusive of many authors & themes. I am not so sure about contemporary lesbian novels & I would have thought that it was a very small niche. One of my points is that sci fi is a vast & difficult genre to actually quantify or define. Maybe I need to do some research on contemporary lesbian science fiction novels.


So I guess to summarize all my posts up to this point, you might say my point is exactly your question to me: what is your point?

Good point. My point (I think, I may be getting confused a little now) is that science fiction (& proto-sci fi) is a huge sprawling genre encompassing everything from absurdism allegory & analogy to cliches, conceptual breakthroughs, fantastic voyages, iconoclasm, linguistics, immortality, media landscapes, perceptions, predictions, satire, social comment, taboos & gender roles (including contemporary lesbians) yet most academics seem to refuse to take it seriously as a contemporary art form or genre. Maybe because of its connection with juvenilia & the corresponding associations with the cognitive estrangements of a youthful audience or readership or otherwise.

[JBI]

Actually, of all the genres I think science fiction is one of the ones that is taken the most seriously - genre romance, for instance, will be studied, but not studied as "literature", more as anthropological specimens.

In that sense, I am not to sure that science fiction itself gets a bad rep. It is just that the genre has assembled a canon of texts, like some other genres, that quite simply don't hold up as "literature" outside of the significance they have within the genre. The same can be said of Fantasy literature, or Adventure stories, though fantasy would seem to get a bad reputation as the texts that do stand up are minimal, and adventure stories, as a genre seem to take a beating because of the colonial aspects that surround those texts.


As far as genre goes, I think science fiction is one of the most embraced by academics. But, in the sense of things, genre isn't as clearly cut in academic circles either - call The Left Hand of Darkness sci-fi, or whatever, the point is, it defies basic genrization.

Doris Lessing though, well I don't think she won it that late in life because of that - quite frankly, I think she won it for one particular work anyway, The Golden Notebook, which isn't sci-fi anyway. I haven't read much of her work though, so I won't comment, though one would think the fact that she ever won it to be a miracle anyway, given the difficulty.

[Red-Headed]

Actually, of all the genres I think science fiction is one of the ones that is taken the most seriously - genre romance, for instance, will be studied, but not studied as "literature", more as anthropological specimens.

As I stated earlier, it is earnestly studied by some academics, I don't think it is taken that seriously by many though. Darko Suvin for instance is much better known for his writing about Brecht than about science fiction.


In that sense, I am not to sure that science fiction itself gets a bad rep. It is just that the genre has assembled a canon of texts, like some other genres, that quite simply don't hold up as "literature" outside of the significance they have within the genre.

Is this to do with the perception of it producing penny dreadfuls/dime novels by the score or space opera though? Much sci fi would stand up as literature on its own.


The same can be said of Fantasy literature, or Adventure stories, though fantasy would seem to get a bad reputation as the texts that do stand up are minimal, and adventure stories, as a genre seem to take a beating because of the colonial aspects that surround those texts.

I suppose it depends on which 'fantasy novels'.



As far as genre goes, I think science fiction is one of the most embraced by academics. But, in the sense of things, genre isn't as clearly cut in academic circles either - call The Left Hand of Darkness sci-fi, or whatever, the point is, it defies basic genrization.

This is another problem with the definition of sci fi, is it prophetic, allegorical, satirical, fantastical, escapist or all or none of these?


Doris Lessing though, well I don't think she won it that late in life because of that - quite frankly, I think she won it for one particular work anyway, The Golden Notebook, which isn't sci-fi anyway. I haven't read much of her work though, so I won't comment, though one would think the fact that she ever won it to be a miracle anyway, given the difficulty.

She is convinced she was not treated with the same seriousness as many other writers of her generation because she was 'associated' with sci fi very early on. I'm inclined to agree with her.

[mal4mac]

I disagree with your disagreement. ;) "The best" fiction from all genres is what I would call "great fiction".

Literary fiction on the other hand is that specific genre which sees "literary merit" and "writerliness" as goals in and of themselves. Jonathan Franzen, Zadie Smith, and Ian McEwan are examples.

... literary fiction, or serious fiction, or whatever you want to call it - has an artificially inflated value because it is associated with an elite education.


They have great value to me and I did not go through an elite, literary eduction (comprehensive school , science path...)

Shakespeare and Dickens created literary fiction, and I don't think their value has been inflated -- given the distortion of value in modern society, quite the opposite! For instance it took me a while to get round to reading some of Shakespeare's less well known plays. The 'forces of rezentment' in modern British culture don't give them the praise they deserve. (Shakespeare gets played more in Germany than Britain -- which is shaming,...)

Literary fiction shows itself through having a high aesthetic value, that is, as providing a perceptual experience of pleasure (meaning, satisfaction, joy...) in the inner sense of the individual reader.

If a book is enjoyed only by an "elite" this might indicate that it is not actually literature, or it might indicate that only that "elite" has had the time and experience to master it -- Joyce's Ulysses/Finnegan's Wake and Proust are examples that still seem to divide the critics -- elitist foibles or literature? Discuss :)

"Literary fiction has literary merit" is a tautology. What is "writerliness"?

It's interesting how my own aesthetic experience can vary so much, even with supposedly great & similar works by the same author. For instance, last week I listened to Bach's Brandenburg concertos and found not much pleasure in them. The next evening I listened to his violin concertos and found them inexpressibly beautiful.

Any thoughts on how one can improve ones taste? Just keep on listening? Read books that help you know what to listen out for? If so, which books?

[mal4mac]

My point, though, is who exactly is this literary community? If you don't believe in the literati ivory tower "conspiracy" and you recognize that professors are studying Science Fiction and teaching courses on it, well, then who exactly is this literature community that doesn't take Science Fiction seriously then? Part of the problem is the literary communities are very niche, especially when we start talking about actual professors studying in universities. The Sci-fi professors are those professors interested in Science Fiction, while the guys studying Faulkner are those interested in American Modernism, while the professor studying contemporary lesbian novels are those interested in contemporary lesbian novels. The contemporary lesbian novel professor could also ask the same question, "Why aren't contemporary lesbian novels taken seriously by the literary community?"

You can only try to find your own literary community, and hopefully leaders of that community who can help you find good things to read! Two of my favourites leaders are Charles Van Doren ("The Joy of Reading") and Harold Bloom ("The Western Canon") They recommend some science fiction books, even though they have the reputation of being stout defenders of the traditional literary canon. Kingsley Amis wrote a book about forty years ago called "New maps of Hell" that had the reputation for destroying the old fangled view that *no* science fiction can be literature. Amis seems to have worked, attacking literati for being against science fiction now seems to be a straw man attack only used by sf fans who are still living in the past (?)

[Paulclem]

I like the 'allegorical' form of science fiction as well, but I think that it has, or can, have much more to say as a form.



Don't forget his theories on eugenics that are also promulgated in works like The Time Machine.



It is said that he turned the date 19(48) into 19(84). It is definitely a political allegory. If it wasn't set in an alternate future but in some unspecified country would it still be sci fi?

Yes, I agree that it has much more to say. Bank's books routinely make assumptions about the nature of consciousness, and whether it would be possible to "upload" a mind into a body. Neil Asher does the same, but this is relevant now to debates upon the nature of consciousness as having an organic source.

Well's may well have been toying with the ideas of eugenics, but it was before it was a dirty word. The same thing could happen with gene therapy, (This is being discussed in another thread).

I think 1984's content, apart from the setting, would make it Sci-Fi, though it a strong comment on the politial issues that were current. The idea of Big Brother promulgated through technology is an example, as is newsspeak. They hold wide ranging implications, hence the constant references to them in modern culture.

I feel there is a sense that Sci-Fi is not credited with the same status as other literature, but should be for the above reasons and more. It has currency beyond the period it adresses, in the same way that literature in dealing with human relations and lots of other issues- historical etc.

[Red-Headed]

Shakespeare and Dickens created literary fiction,

I wouldn't disagree with this but the real origins of the novel in England are when the theatre was essentially emasculated by the paranoia of the Walpole government. Satirists like Fielding turned to the novel as a way of dodging censorship somewhat. Notwithstanding the epistolary novels of Richardson inter alia at around the same time.

[Red-Headed]

Yes, I agree that it has much more to say. Bank's books routinely make assumptions about the nature of consciousness, and whether it would be possible to "upload" a mind into a body. Neil Asher does the same, but this is relevant now to debates upon the nature of consciousness as having an organic source.

I think Frederick Pohl had some similar ideas.


Well's may well have been toying with the ideas of eugenics, but it was before it was a dirty word. The same thing could happen with gene therapy, (This is being discussed in another thread).

Those Nazis have a lot to answer for! I'm not so sure that Wells is completely innocent though, weren't the morlocks in The Time Machine supposed to be a eugenic projection of the proletariat working classes?


I think 1984's content, apart from the setting, would make it Sci-Fi, though it a strong comment on the politial issues that were current. The idea of Big Brother promulgated through technology is an example, as is newsspeak. They hold wide ranging implications, hence the constant references to them in modern culture.

Yeah, scarily prophetic.


I feel there is a sense that Sci-Fi is not credited with the same status as other literature, but should be for the above reasons and more. It has currency beyond the period it adresses, in the same way that literature in dealing with human relations and lots of other issues- historical etc.

This has been my point for a while. Perhaps if it was re-branded as something like 'speculative fiction' or something it might fare better?

[Paulclem]

This has been my point for a while. Perhaps if it was re-branded as something like 'speculative fiction' or something it might fare better?[/QUOTE]

Good idea. The problem with the term Sci Fi is that it is an accurate decription of the good stuff and all the trash on TV etc. I think fantasy has the same problem. perhaps in time the filter of discernment will hold up the good stuff as examples of the genre.

[Jozanny]

Another problem I see, though it may not relate directly to why genres do not always have equal weight, is the problem of the next frontier. Much of the fiction of science is now the possible science we have. Cloning is a rather non-dramatic livestock/pet reality, and it is only a matter of time before we clone ourselves. Warp drives, planet exploration, all this is on the horizon or nearly there, even cyborg technology. The only thing that I think is impossible is time travel into the past, as I do not see how we could control particle formation so precisely to reconstruct the already occurred to alter that. None of us are what we were at birth, because the body only provides an illusion of being one object. We shed flesh and bone regularly until cell function ceases viability, so I think time travel backwards will always remain pretty much a fancy, but much of science fiction we grew up with isn't fiction anymore.

[Red-Headed]

I'd pay good money to see a warp drive. I think it is a few thousand years away personally. I'm inclined to agree about time travel, but with my very poor knowledge & understanding of quantum theory, there are supposedly possibilities even there.

[Red-Headed]

This has been my point for a while. Perhaps if it was re-branded as something like 'speculative fiction' or something it might fare better?

Good idea. The problem with the term Sci Fi is that it is an accurate decription of the good stuff and all the trash on TV etc. I think fantasy has the same problem. perhaps in time the filter of discernment will hold up the good stuff as examples of the genre.

I'm pretty sure Hugo Gernsback coined the phrase scientific fiction in an August 1923 magazine article entitled 'Science & Invention'. Later he planned a magazine called Scientifiction.

[Jozanny]

I'd pay good money to see a warp drive.

I read an article about it online, though I cannot remember where, and though it would not go zapping ships like the Enterprise about, the concept is the same, curving the time-space field in a feasible manner. It was one of those science fiction break through features trussed up for verbal persons like me. (And I have faith in my ability to understand Greene's Elegant Universe when I dare to finally unwrap it, right?:goof:)

Amazon has me on a virtual glut diet of free science fiction which actually isn't that bad, but nothing that really takes chances like Vonnegut and Sturgeon-- um, both of whom I paid for--but I think that so much of the genre is available for free, or well under Vonnegut's price, suggests the implicit assumption in your query is correct.

[Red-Headed]

I read an article about it online, though I cannot remember where...


Maybe Miguel Alcubierre? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Alcubierre)

[CaptainHatteras]

Sorry to be bringing up this old thread. I've lost this forum for a few years, lol. But now I'm back.

One of my personal problems with most of science fiction is that writers are not real futurists and/or do not consult futurists, or even try to do much research before they start writing, instead they amplify a single futuristic idea with their scientific or technological preconceptions. This is why Jules Verne was such a great science fiction writer, because he did substantial amount of research, he was always knowledgeable about the cutting edge technological developments and combined this knowledge to foresee plausible futuristic expectations.

If you consult with various industry experts today, you'll find out that it's possible to have a general idea of where things are heading, and if you consult 20 or so industries, it'll be possible to make an interesting extrapolation from there on how these technologies could converge. It's a shame that we do not have a modern Jules Verne.

[kelby_lake]

Most genre writers aren't taken seriously, perhaps with the exception of crime/mystery, as they don't have the broad appeal of mainstream fiction. They're written for people who like to read that genre and adhere to a certain formula. Sci-fi also has lots of new concepts that people have to get their heads round- similar to fantasy.

I like sci-fi in the sense of dystopia fiction but not really keen on spaceships and aliens.

[Paulclem]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jul/20/book-club-use-of-weapons-iain-m-banks

The above link is a piece in The Guardian book club, and discusses the "literary-ness" of one of Iain M Banks' former novels.

Whilst I agree that much sci fi is written for the sci fi audience, Banks is bringing a literary-ness into his work. A later novel - Surface Detail - is really good at challenging a literal view of what hell is like and should be for, and challenges our own expectations of justice within the novel.

I think part of the problem is how they are marketed. They must sell to continue the work, and so they have to fulfil a particular remit. Banks is unusual in this in that he alternates between conventional novels and sci fi - but I think there is an increasing sophistication about them. Margaret Atwood with Oryx and Crake has denied a sci fi tag, and maintained that it is a literary piece. Perhaps she's afraid of limiting or pigeonholing her audience.