Can Science-Fiction be "great" literature?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for an interesting and lively debate.

Zippy.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zippy

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

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

Zippy.

---

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

Quote:

---

There are two excellent sci-fi writers that come to mind: Kurt Vonnegut and Philip K. Dick.

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kashkin

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

---

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

Zippy.

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Simak
Strugatski brothers
Bradbury
Asimov
Zelazny
Simmons
Martin

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by higley

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

btw. @gsingle33: nice sig

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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