What is your evidence that science fiction isn't taken seriously? What is your criteria for 'taken seriously'?
Printable View
What is your evidence that science fiction isn't taken seriously? What is your criteria for 'taken seriously'?
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 didn't read through the whole thread so forgive me if I'm repeating. But I think Noisms is quite right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noisms
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noisms
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by WICKES
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.
Yes I agree. It's the reason for the re-classification to respectability that I am interested in.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noisms
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noisms
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
I could probably name ten, maybe twenty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermac
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-Headed
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?
When I was very young I enjoyed the James Blish interpretations of many of the TV scripts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumiere
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumiere
It can be an exploration of the totally strange & alien. These explorations can be psychological, political, allegorical & almost anything else however.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumiere
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. 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.
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