Science Fiction as Literature

[Jon Miller]

BTW, if we are just listing good speculative fiction writers (which seems to be what some people are doing), I will mention Cherryh, who is way better than many of the people listed (including some who are accused of literature).

JM

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
commonly held cultural definitions of literature tend to be derived from work done in institutions like the Harvard and Yale English departments

Those departments might be better equipped to determine the value of literature, but you're deceiving yourself if you think they set popular trends. It's not like they do tons of groundbreaking research that anyone cares about. It's English for christssake.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Those departments might be better equipped to determine the value of literature, but you're deceiving yourself if you think they set popular trends. It's not like they do tons of groundbreaking research that anyone cares about. It's English for christssake.

Nobody's talking about popular trends. And obviously Americans don't care about the value of literature; they're barely literate. But that wasn't the point being discussed.

[Aeson]

"Catcher and the Rye"

I seem to recall reading Jules Verne in a Lit class. (And not Catcher...) Some of the other good Sci-Fi just probably needs some time before they really start to stand out from the drivel... just like any other genre.

[Whoha]

the foundation books are good, I think i've read four of them, but it has been a long while.

[Jon Miller]

Foundation books were good, but I Wouldn't consider anything that Asimov wrote as being great fabulous stuff.

JM

[DinoDoc]

Re: Re: Science Fiction as Literature

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
You can agree or disagree with the reasoning, but that's the reasoning.

Both those reasons seem rediculous. Didn't Chaucer or Shakespeare make their works for money? Kuci already answered the tropey aspect reason.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Perfection
WRONG! Commonly held definitions of literature tend to be derived from middle/high school and to a lesser extent college not prestigious institutions. This is because everybody has had a crapton of middle amnd high school english teachers, a few have one or two college english profs, and almost nobody went to top tier university english classes.

WRONG! The fact that most people get there definitions there does not mean that that's where the definitions originate. Most peopel also get their unsderstanding of evolutionary theory from high school biology teachers -- so is high school where the nature of evolutionary theory is determined?

[Jon Miller]

BTW, a lot of the reason why speculative fiction is rarely considered literature is found right here. A lot of people read speculative fiction for the ideas, and not the word choice, style, symbolism, etc. They then claim that authors with good ideas are great writers. In reality, often they are crap writers.

Literature on the other hand, is concerned with symbolism, style, etc.

JM

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Nobody's talking about popular trends. And obviously Americans don't care about the value of literature; they're barely literate. But that wasn't the point being discussed.

Of course we're talking about popular trends! Specifically, why does the English education community in general neglect SF! That's a popular trend.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Perfection
Of course we're talking about popular trends! Specifically, why does the English education community in general neglect SF! That's a popular trend.

No, it's not. The behavior of professional teachers and scholars of English does not constitue a "popular trend" within any actually meaningful definition of that term.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
BTW, a lot of the reason why speculative fiction is rarely considered literature is found right here. A lot of people read speculative fiction for the ideas, and not the word choice, style, symbolism, etc. They then claim that authors with good ideas are great writers. In reality, often they are crap writers.

Literature on the other hand, is concerned with symbolism, style, etc.

JM

And as I pointed out earlier, those authors in these genres that are concerned with symbolism and style as well as having good fantasical ideas are called by the critics as General Fiction, rather than Science Fiction (aka, "The Road") or Fantasy (aka, "Midnight's Children" - I'd imagine a tale that involves characters who have magical abilities because they were born within an hour of midnight of India's independence qualifies as a "fantasy" work).

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly WRONG! The fact that most people get there definitions there does not mean that that's where the definitions originate. Most peopel also get their unsderstanding of evolutionary theory from high school biology teachers -- so is high school where the nature of evolutionary theory is determined?

Just because one common notion comes from academia doesn't mean all notions do. And the common notion of what "literature" isn't one of them!

(what I mean by "common notion of 'literature'" is what is percieved by the public as having high literary merit)

I'd speculate people get their common notion from the books forced down their throats by high school and to a lesser extent college educators. Teachers don't teach the books that academia says are the best (unlike science classes where they teach the theories academia says are the best), they teach what they like! This happens to have a female bias with the emphasis on touchy feely crap.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Nobody's talking about popular trends

commonly held cultural definitions of literature

It is clear that we don't get our ideas about what literature is from Harvard. These common definitions might not even exist, if most people are 'barely literate' as you claim.

If your actual claim is that Harvard and other top school English departments are better judges of what is and is not literature, good for you. It's probably true, but don't give two Ivy league English departments too much credit.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Perfection
Just because one common notion comes from academia doesn't mean all notions do. And the common notion of what "literature" isn't one of them!

(what I mean by "common notion of 'literature'" is what is percieved by the public as having high literary merit)

Why would you be interested in "common notions of literature"? That's like being interested in "common notions of evolution." They're worthless.

edit: And as both a former English professor and a former director of an NGO engaged in curriculum development, I can assure you that your idea that English curricula aren't the result of a trickle-down from academia, just like in the sciences, is simply wrong.