Science Fiction as Literature

[Elok]

I've only recently started digging into the genre in earnest (it's a long story why, and I doubt anyone cares). I've been digging through my father's SF collection almost at random, and so far I've found a fair amount of creepy and degenerate crap (Childhood's End, Farnham's Freehold), some interesting scientific speculation without an emotionally involving plot (Starship Troopers, I Am Legend), and some stuff that's just silly (The Man-Kzin Wars, which I read way back in elementary school and still found absurd).

But some of it has actual merit as literature; I'm thinking here of Ender's Game and Foundation, the latter of which I just finished. I'll be starting Foundation and Empire next. And there was a thread recently in which polytubbies suggested a canon of Sci-Fi classics (which was where I got the idea of trying Foundation next, so to whoever suggested it). Why is the best of science fiction not taught as literature while utter dreck like Catcher in the Rye gets acclaimed?

That's a rhetorical question, of course. I can think of several answers off the top of my head: lit professors aren't technically oriented, and it can be intimidating when someone mentions relativistic effects offhand; they tend to be chicks, who on average are less technically oriented than men; the genre didn't take off in academic circles for the most part; the books are usually promoted by atrociously silly back-cover copy and tacky artwork; even the best of its authors (that I have encountered so far) show more familiarity and comfort with technical matters than with The Human Condition, which is the chief deity of the Liberal Arts wonk.

Feel free to add your own reasons, recommend a book for me to read after I've finished the Foundation series, or repost/add your own canon. Mine so far is just Ender's Game, War of the Worlds and Foundation.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Re: Science Fiction as Literature

Originally posted by Elok
That's a rhetorical question, of course. I can think of several answers off the top of my head: lit professors aren't technically oriented, and it can be intimidating when someone mentions relativistic effects offhand; they tend to be chicks, who on average are less technically oriented than men; the genre didn't take off in academic circles for the most part; the books are usually promoted by atrociously silly back-cover copy and tacky artwork; even the best of its authors (that I have encountered so far) show more familiarity and comfort with technical matters than with The Human Condition, which is the chief deity of the Liberal Arts wonk.

All your reasons are wrong.

The real reason is that no genre fiction is considered literature. The prejuidice against scifi extends to mysteries, romances, horror novels, etc. The chief reason is that genre fiction, by its very nature, is strongly bound by convention and therefore considered to be incapable of exhibiting the originality that is expected of capital-L Literature. A secondary reason is that genre fiction is considered to exist primarily for commercial purposes and only incidently as creative expression, while the opposite is is considered to be true of capital-L lit.

You can agree or disagree with the reasoning, but that's the reasoning.

[Ming]

While I enjoyed Ender's Game, please remember it was originally published as a novella in an SF pulp magazine.
It wasn't expanded into a novel until much later. While it's a good read, I would hardly classify it as real literature. It's your basic one trick pony with a typical short story ending.

I will agree with you on Foundation and War of the Worlds.

I will point out that Stranger in a Strange land is considered literature by many creative writer teachers in universities. While I don't agree with many of the interpretations (and neither did Heinlein) that professors try to read into it... it is a good read.

Some of Simmons stuff would also qualify IMHO.

But it really depends on what you definition of literature is. I've read many excellent SF novels and would consider them excellent examples of good writing.

[Wiglaf]

Welcome to the 8th grade Elok.

[snoopy369]

I have no idea why you'd consider Ender's Game literature but not Childhood's End, for example. The latter is much better literature-wise. Ender's is fun and quite interesting, but not capital-L Literature.

Several SF writers are quite 'literate'; it's a matter of whether you use a SF setting to:
a) Write about cool science stuff (Greg Benford)
b) Write a thriller with more flexibility than normal (Crichton)
c) Explore sociological questions in a world unhindered by "reality" (Asimov)

c) would be consdered Literature in my book, a) and B) not.

Other "literate" authors:
Iain M. Banks
Octavia Butler
William Gibson
Joe Haldeman
Kim Stanley Robinson
Edgar Rice Burroughs
Kurt Vonnegut
David Brin

Many others are similar to 'literate' but a bit weirder and thus probably wouldn't be in the same boat, even if they have great value literarily (John Barnes, Alistair Reynolds) and some write a few 'literate' books and mostly in the other sections (Lois McMaster Bujold, Greg Bear).

[Lancer]

The Forever War

[CrONoS]

Stanislas Lem "Solaris" is a piece of literature...

[Imran Siddiqui]

"A Canticle for Leibowitz" by Walter Miller has always been (IMO) the premier example of science fiction as literature.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Science Fiction as Literature

"as" literature? Science fiction is somehow inherently less deserving than other forms of the written word?

edit: apparently this has been addressed

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ming
While I enjoyed Ender's Game, please remember it was originally published as a novella in an SF pulp magazine.
It wasn't expanded into a novel until much later. While it's a good read, I would hardly classify it as real literature. It's your basic one trick pony with a typical short story ending.

Why can't that be literature?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Ming
Some of Simmons stuff would also qualify IMHO.

Most of the time people talk about SF as literature, Dan Simmons' name gets tossed around. His Hyperion stuff, his Greek mythology setting - these are all considered SF lit. There are a lot of literary references, and the author is full of himself. (I actually like his stuff.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Re: Re: Science Fiction as Literature

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The real reason is that no genre fiction is considered literature. The prejuidice against scifi extends to mysteries, romances, horror novels, etc. The chief reason is that genre fiction, by its very nature, is strongly bound by convention and therefore considered to be incapable of exhibiting the originality that is expected of capital-L Literature. A secondary reason is that genre fiction is considered to exist primarily for commercial purposes and only incidently as creative expression, while the opposite is is considered to be true of capital-L lit.

You can agree or disagree with the reasoning, but that's the reasoning.

I can somewhat see that, but there are some genre fiction that don't necessarily suffer as a result by convention or commercial expectations rather than as an art form. The Fantasy genre has a great number of works that can be considered "literature" rather than simply novels. I guess, though, as a genre, fantasy is very expansive, covering works from "Lord of the Rings" to "Midnight's Children" to "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell".

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Re: Science Fiction as Literature

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
All your reasons are wrong.

The real reason is that no genre fiction is considered literature. The prejuidice against scifi extends to mysteries, romances, horror novels, etc. The chief reason is that genre fiction, by its very nature, is strongly bound by convention and therefore considered to be incapable of exhibiting the originality that is expected of capital-L Literature. A secondary reason is that genre fiction is considered to exist primarily for commercial purposes and only incidently as creative expression, while the opposite is is considered to be true of capital-L lit.

You can agree or disagree with the reasoning, but that's the reasoning.

Of course it's utter bull**** non-genre fiction is just as tropy as anything else. Easy example: Shakespeare.

[flash9286]

recommend a book for me to read after I've finished the Foundation series, or repost/add your own canon

I recommend the culture series by Banks. Start with Player of Games or Consider Phlebas.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Re: Re: Re: Science Fiction as Literature

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I can somewhat see that, but there are some genre fiction that don't necessarily suffer as a result by convention or commercial expectations rather than as an art form. The Fantasy genre has a great number of works that can be considered "literature" rather than simply novels. I guess, though, as a genre, fantasy is very expansive, covering works from "Lord of the Rings" to "Midnight's Children" to "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell".

All genres arguably contain some works that could be considered "literature," if by "literature" we mean "good" or "complex." I was explaining why none are, which was Eli's rhetorical question. And that extends to fantasy -- no English department takes Lord of the Rings seriously. At the same time, no English department would categorize "Midnight's Children" as a fantasy novel, since it contains none of the markers of the genre.