Science Fiction as Literature

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by quantum_mechani
Ugh, this qualifies only if you define literature as 'boring books'. Red Mars remains one of the few books I think I actually regret finishing.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Red Mars

I've reread the trilogy several times (plus the two other related books: Antarctica which follows a different storyline and The Martian which is just short stories set in the setting of the trilogy).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by rah
SF in Literature.
Some of the books used....
Farenheit 451
Stranger in a strange land
Brave new world
Foundation
River World

For that matter, 1984. Far more important than most "literature".

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Red Mars
Green Mars
Blue Mars

[rah]

Actually I think 1984 was another of the books used.

It was kinda of funny because that course had more books on the reading list than any other lit course I'd ever taken. No one in the class ever whined about it. Probably the most enthusiastic course in terms of class participation that I was ever in.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


As Koyaanisqatsi points out (which makes it very amusing that you say we have nothing to talk about, but Koy brings up interesting points), these works get taken OUT of fantasy or science-fiction because of the inherant biases against those "genres". When you have already demeaned a certain type of writing, of course there can't be any redeemable works coming from them. If there is something with literary merit, it can't be fantasy or sci-fi... it's just fiction.

Genre theory is really just trying to keep certain types of work in the mire, really. To narrowly define it in such a way that a more apt name for, say, sci-fi for those people would be something like "crap involving spaceships".

Forgetting "Midnight's Children" (which I believe is quite obvious fantasy), what about the Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Cormac McCarthy, "The Road"?

It's a book about a father and son trying to make their way to the coast after nuclear armeggedon. It involves their struggles to stay safe and find food. It has been taken out of the area of "science fiction" and classified as just "fiction". Why? Because even though it is quite clearly sci-fi territory, it is written too well and, of course, science fiction can't be allowed to produce anything of literary worth.

Of course when talking about classification into genre:

"There, that is the whole of it, it is only what 'I,' so that say, here kneeling at the edge of literature, can see. In sum, the law. The law summoning: what 'I' can sight and what 'I' can say that I sight in this site of a recitation where I/we is"
- Jacques Derrida

Look, Imran, what you're still not getting is that "genre" means something different, and far more specific, in literary criticism than it does in everyday speech, in the same way that "evolved" means something different in science than it does in everyday speech. In literary terms, you're not even talking about genre; you're talking about tropes, or motifs. Yes, certain books, like the two you mentioned, use fantasy or scifi tropes without being classified -- again, in terms of literary theory -- as parts of those genres. And that's as it should be. Otherwise what you end up with is the assertion -- which you seem to be making with "the Road" -- that any work of fiction that imagines armageddon is, ipso facto, science fiction. A reader might think that way -- hey, it's about the end of the world! I like those books! -- but that doesn't change the fact that it's not how the term is used by scholars. And scholars use these terms not to marginalize Dune, but because it allows them to speak about literature with greater rigor and precision. Yoou can find that activity stupid, dull, and masturbatory -- kind of like Asher's take on philosophy -- but that doesn't make your opinion as valid as that of folks who've devoted heir lives to this stuff.

It's a symptom of how benighted literary studies is, I suppose, that on a board like this, people who speak imprecisely about science get pounced on by the scientists here, and people who speak imprecisely about economicss get whomped by the economists here, but everybody feels like they can just say whatever the hell they feel like about literary theory and criticism. But that doesn't shsange teh fact that there's a whole, extensive body of knowledge about this stuff out there, and most folks here, even the smart ones like you, are unfamiliar with it.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by rah
When I was in college I had two English Lit classes that I enjoyed.

Fantasy in Literature. (main focus was Lord of the Rings)

SF in Literature.
Some of the books used....
Farenheit 451
Stranger in a strange land
Brave new world
Foundation
River World (which I think was only included because Farmer lived down the street from campus and would come and be a guest speaker)

So not every institution is biased against them. It was great to take classes where you had already read all the books. Easy way to pad the GPA

There's a certain time factor involved too...a specific work of genre fiction can be canonized, but it takes a lot longer for it to be recognized than if it were to come from unhyphenated fiction. It also depends on what circles you travel in...for instance, the academic circles I'm closest to recognize some of Neal Stephenson's and Bruce Sterling's work as canon.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Look, Imran, what you're still not getting is that "genre" means something different, and far more specific, in literary criticism than it does in everyday speech, in the same way that "evolved" means something different in science than it does in everyday speech. In literary terms, you're not even talking about genre; you're talking about tropes, or motifs. Yes, certain books, like the two you mentioned, use fantasy or scifi tropes without being classified -- again, in terms of literary theory -- as parts of those genres. And that's as it should be. Otherwise what you end up with is the assertion -- which you seem to be making with "the Road" -- that any work of fiction that imagines armageddon is, ipso facto, science fiction. A reader might think that way -- hey, it's about the end of the world! I like those books! -- but that doesn't change the fact that it's not how the term is used by scholars. And scholars use these terms not to marginalize Dune, but because it allows them to speak about literature with greater rigor and precision. Yoou can find that activity stupid, dull, and masturbatory -- kind of like Asher's take on philosophy -- but that doesn't make your opinion as valid as that of folks who've devoted heir lives to this stuff.

It's a symptom of how benighted literary studies is, I suppose, that on a board like this, people who speak imprecisely about science get pounced on by the scientists here, and people who speak imprecisely about economicss get whomped by the economists here, but everybody feels like they can just say whatever the hell they feel like about literary theory and criticism. But that doesn't shsange teh fact that there's a whole, extensive body of knowledge about this stuff out there, and most folks here, even the smart ones like you, are unfamiliar with it.

Please. One of the reasons for "genre"fication is to marginalize certain types of writing. Some is, of course, for greater classification, but when you, yourself, indicate that science fiction or fantasy cannot be literature based on what the "genre" is supposedly said to encompass, you are just reinforcing the exclusionary nature of the concept of "genre". By narrowly defining genre and then placing it out of the sphere of literature, you are dooming any book that should be placed in that genre with any literary merit whatsoever to be removed from that genre and placed in general fiction. That happens all the time, because that genre isn't supposed to be where great works appear. The genre was seperated out for a reason, because it was to be looked down upon.

Let's face it, the point of refering to something as 'sci-fi' by the elite critics is to mock it and ridicule it. To move into the sphere of, say, television for a second, a number of publications had to seriously justify why they considered "Battlestar Galactica" (the reimagined version) to be the best show on TV. Because "sci-fi" was synonomous with lower quality. That's what the genrefication was meant to do.

However, plenty reject that narrow definition, intended to classify certain types of novel as less deserving of attention from those interested in great literary works. And that is incredibly sad. The use of language to exclude is not a new phenomenon, but to see people justify it in this sphere is very depressing.

I don't know if you have read "The Road", but it is quite obviously science fiction. The consequences of dealing with a world subjected to nuclear war is the main plot device. How can that not be science fiction?

[Sandman]

IMO, defining the genres as very narrow and strict does a great disservice and is used to keep those genres as something to be looked down upon.

Perhaps authors don't want to get pigeonholed by the confines of a genre. If a first-time author pens a novel with modest sci-fi themes, and already has plans for a second historical novel set during the Spanish Civil War, they'll certainly suffer if their first work is classed as science fiction.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Please. One of the reasons for "genre"fication is to marginalize certain types of writing. Some is, of course, for greater classification, but when you, yourself, indicate that science fiction or fantasy cannot be literature based on what the "genre" is supposedly said to encompass, you are just reinforcing the exclusionary nature of the concept of "genre".

No, I'm reinforcing the exclusionary nature of the term "literature."

The original purpose of genre studies, from the Russian formalists in the early twentieth century through the post-war structuralists up until now, was not to marginalize genre fiction but, in fact, to hold it up as worthy of study -- though, admittedly, not in the same way that literature was studied.

But at this point, as far as I can tell, you're no longer talking about how things are studied; you're talking about how books are marketed by publishing houses and how they're discussed by journalistic book critics and pretentious, recently-graduated liberal arts majors. And if those are your targets, then I happily concede your point; middlebrow critics, professional and amateur alike, tend to dismiss genre fiction out of a kind of tedious status anxiety in favor of so-called serious fiction. If that was the point of the OP as well, then I'm sorry I misread it -- but it certainly could have been stated clearer than it was.

As for The Road, which I haven't read but will take your word for, all I can do is point out the obvious -- in the humanistic world of reading, author trumps genre. Thus an author primarily known for "serious fiction" can dabble in genre and still be taken seriously (one might also think here of Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, Mailer's Tough Guys Don't Dance, and Roth's The Plot Against America), while an author primarily known for genre fiction has a hard time getting his non-generic efforts taken seriously (Stephen King, anyone? -- although that's not a great example, because he's a terrible writer). And, yeah, that's kind of silly, I suppose.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
No, I'm reinforcing the exclusionary nature of the term "literature."

Given that they're effectively in opposition, I'm not sure how you can do one without the other.

[Zkribbler]

Don't forget Ursula LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness and the Dispossessed.

[rah]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Red Mars
Green Mars
Blue Mars

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks that. And your opinion of Green Mars may be a bit high.

I had to stop reading Blue Mars, and I've finished some really bad books.

[Elok]

What I use as the dividing line here is whether a work of "speculative fiction" (to avoid hair-splitting) uses an unusual situation to show its human characters, and/or human nature, in a new light--or if it's the reverse, and characters are used as mere tools for a thesis on lasers/tachyons/transdimensional superbeings, as in all too much of the sci-fi I've encountered.

That, IMO, is what makes any work a classic worth reading after many years have gone by: the extent to which the plot and characters have an appeal capable of crossing the boundaries of time and culture and talk about things everyone with 46 chromosomes can relate to.

So, Foundation uses the implausible idea of a mathematical theory that can predict mass behavior with great accuracy to explore the effects of various forces on our behavior and the development of our civilizations. Ender's Game uses the kid-geniuses conceit as a tool to discuss the ethics and meaning of war. War of the Worlds has a massive alien invasion, but uses it for a very powerful depiction of mass hysteria. There's plenty worth exploring and discussing there.

I suppose Childhood's End might qualify, but I think I'm biased against it by my extreme loathing for it. Yaaaay the human race is absorbed by the overmind and the earth is destroyed, isn't it beautiful?!?!?! Starship Troopers does discuss deeper themes, but it's totally blunt and what it says is, to my mind, not too interesting or insightful. It's like interstellar Pat Buchanan.

The more I think about it, the more I realize how subjective this all is, and I'm sure most people don't use my definition, but the same can be said of non-sci-fi/fantasy literature. Some people think Allen Ginsberg is a POET, for crying out loud...

EDIT: One bit of awkward phrasing bothered me

[Impaler[WrG]]

Lots of good arguments being made in this thread.

Sci-Fi is far and away my favorite genre but I also enjoy a "heavy" Lit stuff once and a while and have my own sense of what separates them.

"Literature" focuses on emotional and morale quandary seen through well developed characters. Setting is de-emphasized which allows for the "head-hunting" Imran describes (best genre works being reclassified as Lit). Some noticeable examples Moby Dick and The Catcher in the Rhye .

Sci-Fi at its most 'hard' emphasis a kind of thought experimentation on the future given a set of assumptions, usually technological developments or future events. Characters and their development are de-emphasized in favor of the setting which needs to be explained in detail. The quintessential examples are Asimov's Robot short stories which explore the ramifications of his famous Three Laws.

Thus their is a natural separation between Lit and Sci-Fi, thus the notion that the two are polar-opposites is not wholly wrong, each emphasizes an almost wholly opposite set of qualities in the work and skills in the writer. Though of course I dis-agree with any attempt to lay scorn upon Sci-Fi and other genre-Fiction.

The explanation for this opinion has also been widely discussed and I think people are a bit off the track when they argue that the blame falls on a single group. The potential culprits are 1) Elite Academia 2) snotty Liberal arts majors and other 'middle brows' 3) the rank and file High School English teachers. I believe all three agree with each other and reinforce each others options to create an Iron Triangle of prejudice. Each may have its own primary reasons such as Academia's disdain for for-profit writing, the middle brow revulsion for anything the common man likes, and the rank and file English teachers dislike for action oriented plot lines.

[Nostromo]

War of the Worlds has a massive alien invasion, but uses it for a very powerful depiction of mass hysteria.

I thought it was a criticism of colonialism...