Can Science Fiction be classed as "classic" literature?

[Sancho Panza]

As a reader with highly eclectic taste in books, I have read a great deal of science fiction, but can a science fiction novel ever match the timeless genius of say Don Quixote or Nicholas Nickelby?

One of the problems with science fiction that would tend to suggest they can't is that by their nature they are vulnerable to becoming outdated when the prophesied future does not come to pass. Also, there is the danger of a book being set so far in the distant future that the reader cannot recognise any part of the world being described. However, in my experience this is not always the case. Philip K. Dick for example was writing 60 years ago and yes, many of his ideas are outdated. But his books are still brilliant and contain astonishing insight into human nature and philosophy, even in his most drug-addled moments.

Then there's Dan Simmon's with his Hyperion Cantos, which can arguable be described as a crossover between sci-fi and the Victorian classic with his Keatsian inspiration that goes right up to its abrupt end.

[kev67]

I think H.G. Wells is considered classic literature. I remember reading 'The Time Machine' in English class. Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World' is considered proper literature. Some people even classify 1984 as science fiction.

[dfloyd]

of that of a Dickens or a Mark Twain. I have read Philip K. Dick and Ray Bradbury and enjoyed both. And I have read the American mystery novels of Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett with great enjoyment without the feeling I did when reading Great Expectations and Huckleberry Finn. The end result is that genre ficton is worth reading, but they will not reach classical status.

I have read Wells, Huxley, and Orwell. but their novels have become outdated. War of the Worlds was replaced by the imagination of Ray Bradbury. 1984 has come and gone,and the Big Brother concept is old hat now. It is as the OP says, science fiction is not universal or time reisistant as Don Quixote.

[ClaesGefvenberg]

As a reader with highly eclectic taste in books, I have read a great deal of science fiction, but can a science fiction novel ever match the timeless genius of say Don Quixote or Nicholas Nickelby?Certainly: It is not what a novel is about that marks it as a classic (or not). It is how well written it is. As an example, Jules Verne comes to mind with From the Earth to the Moon and Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea.

/Claes

[Charles Darnay]

More than outdated technology, science fiction has social or moral commentary that is always relevant. I am thinking of Bradbury here. As for Vern, an adventure told well can be as timeless as anything.

[Helga]

Wells is classic of course but what about Vonnegut? 'Slaughterhouse 5' has some elements from science fiction.

and of course books that use classics as a foundation, like 'Ilium' and 'Olympus' by Simmons

[Pierre Menard]

Then there's Dan Simmon's with his Hyperion Cantos, which can arguable be described as a crossover between sci-fi and the Victorian classic with his Keatsian inspiration that goes right up to its abrupt end.



I really did enjoy the Hyperion Cantos. I was actually introduced to Keats' poetry through the books at about the age of 16 so I'm very grateful for that.
The use of frame story, poetry and different narrators are genuinely interesting parts of the novels that I think shows science fiction doesn't have to be just a straight story with the typical beginning-middle-end structure.

I don't believe there's any reason why science fiction can't be classic literature, it just so happens that the vast majority of the time...it's not. But the same can be said for all literature. You'd think with the influence of technology and it's development over the last 50 years, science-fictiony type settings/themes/etc may be even more prominent in future literature, classic or not.

Also, as far as great science fiction, I've heard pretty decent things about Gene Wolfe from people whose opinions I really do respect. It seems he's been influenced by Borges as well, which could be a very promising thing.

[Lokasenna]

Speaking as someone who enjoys, but is not overly enamoured of, science fiction, I think certain examples of the genre will stand up as classic fiction in decades to come. It is very hard to imagine a 20th century without Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Huxley, Vonnegut or Atwood. I suspect that The Left Hand of Darkness will ultimately come to be seen as one of the seminal and most defining novels of the 20th century.

Come to think of it, isn't Frankenstein essentially science fiction? Though its literary qualities are debatable, I don't think anyone would seriously deny its place in the Canon.

[Sancho Panza]

I really did enjoy the Hyperion Cantos. I was actually introduced to Keats' poetry through the books at about the age of 16 so I'm very grateful for that.



I was also introduced to Keats through Simmons's Hyperion, albeit far more recently.

I think that one requirement for the longevity of any book, but particularly science-fiction, is that there has to be more to the story than just the story, if you see what I mean. Huxley's Brave New World, though it gets silly towards the end, tackles topics of consumerism that are still relevant. The book also bears comparison to a certain extent with 1984. It doesn't have to be a political/economic statement, but just something that makes you think.

[mortalterror]

I don't know that it's ever hit the high water marks of The Odyssey or the Divine Comedy, but I'd definitely count things like Lucian's True Story, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, H.G. Wells' The Time Machine, The Invisible Man, Island of Doctor Moreau, When The Sleeper Wakes, The War of the Worlds, Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward, Jules Verne's From the Earth To the Moon, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, A Journey to the Center of the Earth, Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World, Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, Aldus Hukley's Brave New World, George Orwell's 1984, Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle, Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game, Isaac Asimov's "Night", Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 A Space Odyssey, John Wyndham's The Day of the Triffids, Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange, Stanislaw Lem's Solaris, William Gibson's Neuromancer, and Neal Stephenson's Snowcrash as classics.

Also, I haven't read it, but the Nobel laureate Harry Martinson wrote a sci-fi epic poem about a space ship called Aniara. If that doesn't qualify as artful literature I'm at a loss for what would.

[Germ]

[Genre literature, while enjojable, doesn't reach the level] of that of a Dickens or a Mark Twain...

All literature is "genre" literature. Dickens, for example, strictly adheres to the genre conventions of his day: the bad guys always get their just desserts, virtue is always rewarded (except in Pickwick, which doesn't have conventional good guys and bad guys). Huckleberry Finn, masterpiece that it is, is still nothing but a conventional "adventure" story in terms of plot structure. In Love And Death In The American Novel, Leslie Fiedler shows how genre conventions are used by even those authors with serious artistic ambitions, like Twain, Melville, and Faulkner.

The roots of the modern genre that we call "science fiction" actually go back to the ancient Greeks. One description of SF could be "a type of literature that uses a fantastic situation in order to talk about contemporary society." By that standard, The Golden *** [you've got to be kidding me... okay then, The Golden "Donkey"] is SF. I personally think that the Gospels of the New Testament are a kind of SF.

It all depends on what you mean by SF. Harlan Ellison proposed that the letters should be retained, but should instead made to stand for Speculative Fiction.

This has not yet been addressed: the distinction between "hard" science fiction, and its opposite. On the "soft" end, we have stuff like the Shikasta novels of Doris Lessing (the first one is excellent, by the way). Hard science fiction, with its fixation on mechanical technology, can often be somewhat childish. But some of the examples of this sub-genre are superb. Just take a look at Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clark. For a more modern example check out Schismatrix by Bruce Sterling.

A distinction should probably also be made between SF with a terrestrial setting, and the so-called "space opera."

One further distinction: between more "conventional" SF (even Clark and Sterling fall under this category) and that which is more ambitious, in a literary or artistic sense. Lessing, Vonnegut, William Burroughs, JG Ballard, Pynchon, Don Delillo, etc..

[cafolini]

Speaking as someone who enjoys, but is not overly enamoured of, science fiction, I think certain examples of the genre will stand up as classic fiction in decades to come. It is very hard to imagine a 20th century without Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Huxley, Vonnegut or Atwood. I suspect that The Left Hand of Darkness will ultimately come to be seen as one of the seminal and most defining novels of the 20th century.

Come to think of it, isn't Frankenstein essentially science fiction? Though its literary qualities are debatable, I don't think anyone would seriously deny its place in the Canon.

Very good comments. I feel the same way. However, I think classics will become less and less possible as knowledge becomes more and more possible. Infested as it is with Einstenian nonsense, a lot of the fiction will pass to oblivion.

[emmawillyarms]

I think Frankenstein comes under gothic. I've just finished a half module in science-fiction at university, I would definitely consider sci-fi as classic literature. Course texts were:

H.G. Wells' The Time Machine, Audrey Niffenegger's The Time Traveller’s Wife, Arthur C. Clarke's, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Robert Heinlein's, Starship Troopers, and William Gibson's Neuromancer.

We also looked at the literary film adaptations of some of these texts, as well as science fiction films in comparison to literary film adaptations. We explored The Time Machine (1960 and 2002), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Alien (1979), Blade Runner: The Director’s Cut (1991)/Blade Runner: the Final Cut (2007), and Starship Troopers (1998).

I personally love a dystopian sci-fi novel.

[TheBaron]

Audrey Niffenegger's The Time Traveller’s Wife

My partner did English at Lancaster and is continuously harping on about this book, now I know why! (I'm still refusing to read it of course, on principle).

[OrphanPip]

I wasn't a big fan of the Time Traveler's Wife, but then again I think in terms of genre it is more of a magical realist romance than a science fiction story.

Of writers working now, China Mieville is doing interesting stuff with genre fiction.

[Scheherazade]

I wasn't a big fan of the Time Traveler's Wife, but then again I think in terms of genre it is more of a magical realist romance than a science fiction story. Could not read more than 40 pages of that book.

I consider Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep a classic (and not because of the movie... Maybe even despite the movie :p )... Also, Brave New World as someone else mentioned above.

It is true that the techonology described in a sci-fi book can be outdated in time but I don't see how this is a determining factor for their "classic" status.

With the same logic, it would also be possible to claim that works of Dickens, Austen or Shakespeare should not be considered classics because the societies they described do not exist anymore.

[emmawillyarms]

My partner did English at Lancaster and is continuously harping on about this book, now I know why! (I'm still refusing to read it of course, on principle).

As if! Small world. Not going to lie, I didn't read it. I didn't fancy it myself. I did have a go as everyone else seemed to love it, and the seminar discussion was really interesting. But such complicated non-linear time narratives don't agree with me, and I found it pretty boring. As with Scheherazade, I only got around 40 pages into it, if that.

I'm a big fan of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and after reading it once or twice, Brave New World. Still though, once the middle section with the return to the Reservation begins, I really struggle to stay as focused, and I don't know why.

[MarkBastable]

I don't see why not.

[Mr.lucifer]

Many classics are technically fantasy.

[Paulclem]

Wells' The Time Machine is of course considered a classic. It is a well written piece, but the premise is unfilmable which is why the two films made have been radically different. He wrote it in London at the time they were constructing the Tube. He noted that the workers were spending a lot of time underground - as would commuters- and his vision was of a world where the human race divides due to the working class spending more and more time underground thus developing into the Morlocks.

Of course, this explanation is now inplausible because if anything, we built up. So the film with Rod Taylor had a nuclear disaster responsible for the divergence of the Eloi and the Morlocks.

The more recent film, whilst hardly resembling the original book, has an environmental disaster- a crack in the moon - causing the species to diverge.

But whilst the book's story is implausible, it does say something about social conditions at the time of writing. You have the useless upper classes - the Eloi, and the brutal lower classes - the Morlocks, with Wells modern, scientific man as the visionary that is needed for a better world.

I think that's one of the reasons it's a classic, as well as the quality of the writing. Yet it seems to suggest that Sci Fi may well contain themes which reflect our present concerns in a future context. !984 is clearly dated, but the theme of Big Brother and Newspeak have a direct relevance to to his time and now. Frankenstein could be classed as the same as it deals with Man as God, and we have the whole medical research ethics being debate at the moment - as they were at the time.

Perhps all that's needed is for a proper study of modern Sci Fis to pick out these themes to perhaps predict which will achieve classic longevity.

[WyattGwyon]

I wasn't a big fan of the Time Traveler's Wife, but then again I think in terms of genre it is more of a magical realist romance than a science fiction story.

Of writers working now, China Mieville is doing interesting stuff with genre fiction.

Yes! Perdido Street Station is amazing. The sequels, on the other hand, less so.

[Sancho Panza]

Perdido Street Station took me two attempts to get through but when I finally did I was glad to have made the effort as it was a truly brilliant book once I got into it. As for the Time Travellers Wife, I read it as part of a book group and could barely force myself to reach the middle before I lost the will to read. It is so much romantic drivel with an admittedly interesting premise but which fails to deliver on any level.

One interesting question that has occured to me recently that might stray slightly from the original purpose of this thread is to what extent the technology of sci-fi novels actually inspires progress in real-world gadgets. I have read recently of plans to mine asteroids and surely space-elevators are not a million years away. These ideas may not have originated in fiction, but have been popularised by the likes of Arthur C. Clarke and thus inspired scientists of today and potentially the future. Of course, this can only be the case if the technology being described is actually possible according to the rules of Physics (and inevitably Economics).

The main inspiration behind my asking this is a new series that has just begun (QUEST, Sundays at 9pm) which deals with a similar question and which I shall be watching with avid interest.

[Paulclem]

Perdido Street Station took me two attempts to get through but when I finally did I was glad to have made the effort as it was a truly brilliant book once I got into it. As for the Time Travellers Wife, I read it as part of a book group and could barely force myself to reach the middle before I lost the will to read. It is so much romantic drivel with an admittedly interesting premise but which fails to deliver on any level.

One interesting question that has occured to me recently that might stray slightly from the original purpose of this thread is to what extent the technology of sci-fi novels actually inspires progress in real-world gadgets. I have read recently of plans to mine asteroids and surely space-elevators are not a million years away. These ideas may not have originated in fiction, but have been popularised by the likes of Arthur C. Clarke and thus inspired scientists of today and potentially the future. Of course, this can only be the case if the technology being described is actually possible according to the rules of Physics (and inevitably Economics).

The main inspiration behind my asking this is a new series that has just begun (QUEST, Sundays at 9pm) which deals with a similar question and which I shall be watching with avid interest.

I really liked Perdido St Station, and I liked the Iron Council even more. He's a very interesting writer, Mieville, and must be a writer up there with the imaginative greats.

I think your question's an interesting one. We need creative ideas to direct technology - and it remnds me of Tom Cruise in Minority Report with the gaint touchscreen computer and the advertising that talks to you. I don't think they were around then, but they weren't long in coming.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yes, it can.

[Ellie]

I think that's one of those questions that really gets a professor (and his entire class) going. Everyone has a differing opinion on what "literature" is.

Several people have already mentioned H.G.Wells. I'll add Edgar Allen Poe to that list as well. It could be argued that The Raven isn't really science fiction since all he did was take an average every day crow and throw a mad man into the mix - but then again, I think science fiction has a lot to do with how you FEEL when you read it and not necessarily what is plausible or within the scope of reality.

[JCamilo]

Not the Raven, Poe did wrote science fiction such a ballon story and is a major influence o Verne. Plus, the very unique Eureka, which is a kind of scientific thesis fantasy.

[MarkBastable]

I think that a good indicator that it can might be that no one, as far as I can see at a glance, has suggested any reason why it can't.

[Motherof8]

I would think it would depend on the message.

[Paulclem]

I think that a good indicator that it can might be that no one, as far as I can see at a glance, has suggested any reason why it can't.

Yes - and Use of Weapons by Iain M Banks was discussed recently at the Guardian Book Club. It's a good book, but I would have preferred Surface Detail, which I think is brilliant.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jul/27/use-of-weapons-iain-banks-bookclub

[Coeusful]

The problem with the genre of science fiction is that, lamentably, it has the word 'science' in it. What science fiction largely does is uses an innovation or discovery to alter the empirical environment and thus propel the narrative out of the everyday, extending the author's imagination and allowing for greater impact when expressing ideas. Wells could have written a story about gritty, underground working class men serving under the heel of the privileged elite, but instead, to exaggerate the criticism upon his society, and really smoosh his indictments right in the reader's face, he projected the story about 800,000 years in the future and brought humanity and its descendant sub-species to a state of comparative hyper-evolution.

In this way, science fiction borrows a lot from the gothic genre, seeing as it flings its reader into an atmosphere far removed in space and time to bolster that imaginative impact. But maybe with all the connotations of bug-eyed monsters and daring action-packed adventures for the sake of adventure - maybe with all those trappings attached to the SF genre it hasn't received the full serious attention it deserves.

[Summer M]

The problem with the genre of science fiction is that, lamentably, it has the word 'science' in it.

Unfortunately, much of what passes for science fiction nowadays is not science fiction but fantasy. Nevertheless, science fiction can be very scientific. Greg Egan's latest novels can't really be appreciated by those without some serious background in math and physics.

[Paulclem]

Unfortunately, much of what passes for science fiction nowadays is not science fiction but fantasy. Nevertheless, science fiction can be very scientific. Greg Egan's latest novels can't really be appreciated by those without some serious background in math and physics.

That's not the point though is it? Well's The Time Machine begins with an explanation of simple four dimensional physics, but, (apart from the no doubt outdated nature of the proposition), he is setting a plausible scientific context for the Time traveller to interact with his audience, and to posit the plausibility of his story with the reader.

In Surface Detail - which I mentioned earlier - Iain M Banks gives us a story full of space travel, exotic planets, advanced AIs, recorded personality, alien species and VR wars, but one of the themes within it is the idea of hell, retribution and punishment which cleverly draws the reader in to test their own attitude to hell and who deserves to b punished like this. I think he's using an exotic concept to examine current attitudes to hell, and also punishment.

[PeterL]

Science Fiction goes back at least as early as the 1620's, when Cyrano de Bergerac wrote his "Journey to the Sun" and "Journey to the Moon". If that isn't classis then neither in "Robinson Crusoe. One probably should classify "Gulliver's Travels" a science fiction; although it is also satire.
Someone else mentioned "Frankenstein".