Is Science Fiction literature
kraz...@usa.net
I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form of
literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there got
any suggestions?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
gcar...@gentner.com
In article <6kh9ld$b8t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
kraz...@usa.net wrote:
>
> I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form of
> literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there got
> any suggestions?
The initial problem in your argument is defining literature. Ask yourself
"what is literature?" and you are going to open a much bigger can of worms.
Then there are additional issues like "canonized literature", etc. My problem
is that I happen to have a B.A. in English lit, but I love SF & F. Try to
reconcile that issue why don't you. I just read what I like and look for the
best works everywhere.
Chuck Gee
In <6kh9ld$b8t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> kraz...@usa.net writes:
>I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form of
>literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there got
>any suggestions?
Yes, I believe I have a suggestion.
Why don't you look up the word "literature" in a dictionary. That will
enlighten you as to the utterly absurd nature of your premise.
Michael G. Haynes
Well, I think I'd start by defining what you mean by literature and what
does it take to be a valid piece of literature. Are you referring to
plot elements, writing style, characterization? and What time period are
you referring to since concepts of literary merit alter with the passage
of time. Also you might want to make genre distinctions; for instance
are you considering classic SF, modern SF, tv tie in scifi, space opera?
Each area has its own sense of what makes this good science fiction
which may or may not coincide with what makes good literature.
Don't focus on ONE area in particular or your essay will be one-sided
also. You shouldn't have that tough a time defending science fiction as
literature as long as you define what you are talking about.
:)
Michael G. Haynes
In rec.arts.sf.written kraz...@usa.net wrote:
> I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form of
> literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there got
> any suggestions?
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
--
--
Michael G. Haynes | "All the world will be your enemy, and when"
mgha...@oakland.edu | "they catch you, they will kill you, Prince"
bu...@gatecom.com | "with a thousand enemies."
| --"Watership Down"...Richard Adams
Seth Deitch
On Wed, 27 May 1998 14:57:49 GMT, kraz...@usa.net wrote:
>I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form of
>literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there got
>any suggestions?
>
Has anyone ever expressed serious doubt about that in recent years?
If its not literature, than what the hell is it? Sheesh!
Jim Mann
kraz...@usa.net wrote:
>
> I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form of
> literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there got
> any suggestions?
>
Well, first off you have to say what you mean by the term literature. If
you are using it, in its broadest sense, the answer is "of course, by
definition."
If you are using it the way it often is in these discussions,
essentially to include high quality books of some depth that have
something interesting to say about life, the universe, and everything,
the answer is either "yes and no" or "the question is meaningless."
More precisely, I'd say that SF is not literature (a genre as a whole
can't be), but many SF books are (and many are not).
Jim Mann
Budwebster
>I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form of
>literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there got
>any suggestions?
I HATE this subject.
I've been fighting this particular argument for several decades, and when all
the hair-splitting is over and done with, all that matters is who's defining
what to whom.
Is SF a valid form of literature? Well, some is, some isn't. I certainly
wouldn't be wasting my time reading and writing it if I didn't think it was
"valid", I can tell you that for sure.
Will it ever be "valid" to that group of yahoos who drop any writer once they
sell more than 4,000 copies or make the Oprah book club? No, it won't, and all
the essays and debate in the world won't change their minds.
Will it ever be "valid" in a larger sense? Some will, some won't, and the rest
will be mercifully forgotten.
Will this debate continue well into the next millenium? Without a doubt, so
someone please, just shoot me now.
Bud Webster
Writer - Editor - Proofreader: Think of me as an infinite number of monkeys.
"Bubba Pritchert and the Space Aliens" now on the Web at www.wwco.com/scifi
Elisabeth Carey
kraz...@usa.net wrote:
>
> I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form of
> literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there got
> any suggestions?
First define "valid".
Then define "literature".
Lis Carey
Lance
kraz...@usa.net wrote:
> I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form of
> literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there got
> any suggestions?
>
I am writing an essay on whether or not Trolling is a valid form ofliterature,
and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there got
any suggestions?
If not, perhaps I'll go to the alt.barney.die.die.die group and tell them I'm
having "troble" deciding if the purple one is a valid form of educational
television.
--
Lance Berg
http://empyre.net
Travis C. Porco
In article <6kh9ld$b8t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <kraz...@usa.net> wrote:
>I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form of
>literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there got
>any suggestions?
Step one is to try to figure out why in God's green earth anyone
would have ever argued that it WASN'T a valid form of literature.
Here's another proposal: argue that books that mention cats in the
past aren't valid literature! :)
--
Travis **standard disclaimers apply**
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly
is to fill the world with fools." --Herbert Spencer
mhar...@itsnet.com
In article <6kip5l$2h0$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
po...@stat.Berkeley.EDU (Travis C. Porco) wrote:
>
> In article <6kh9ld$b8t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <kraz...@usa.net> wrote:
> >I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form of
> >literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there got
> >any suggestions?
>
As someone who just lost a job at a research university because I write
science fiction--my own literature--instead of articles about other people's,
I think I may have some insight into this. Most people I know of consider
science fiction to be a lesser form of art because it sells. Really! In my
study of the past, I have found the same thing to hold true of a lot of
authors who sell. You can look at the complaints that Nathaniel Hawthorne
wrote about women authors who were selling his *** off in the 1800s in
America, or the condescending tone of Wieland's introduction to Sophie von La
Roche's Sternheim for the same thing. If it is popular, it must be bad. The
reasoning behind this is that a large majority of people can't possibly like
anything that is deep (read subversive here) because the large majority of
people are idiots. So say the academics (they have to justify their lives
somehow, eh?). That's it in a nutshell. Real literature can't sell.
Mette Harrison
Jonathan Meltzer
In article <6kh9ld$b8t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <kraz...@usa.net> wrote:
>I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form of
>literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there got
>any suggestions?
You might want to get Thomas Disch's new book
--
Jon Meltzer
jmel...@world.std.com
James Battista
kraz...@usa.net wrote:
: I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form of
: literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there got
: any suggestions?
I'd bet that you recognize that some SF works have real literary merit and
others don't, and that the question "Is SF valid literature" really doesn't
ask much.
I think that what you're really interested in, or ought to be, is whether
or not _being SF_ is an integral part of the literary merit of the works
in question. Take any of a number of SF works that are ususally perceived
as being of high quality, and ask some questions: Are the SF aspects of
this work necessary to get the author's point across, or would this
work just as well set in, say, an Austen-like piece? Do the SF aspects
help the author? Do they actively detract from the work?
Obviously the answers you get will vary -- in _Hyperion_ the SF aspects are
pushing irrelvancy (not surprising given that it's a retelling of
_The Canterbury Tales_. In any of a number of utopian/quasi utopian (Banks'
Culture books), dystopian (there are lots, take your pick), ecotopian
(lots by KS Robinson) pieces the SF aspects are an important part of
defining the society. In work by Greg Egan, the SF-ness is central as
he spends a lot of time exploring the effects of (future) technology on
psychology, the nature of the mind, the nature of identity, and so on
Hope this helps some!
Jim
Dave
In article <6kip5l$2h0$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Travis C. Porco <po...@stat.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> Here's another proposal: argue that books that mention cats in the
> past aren't valid literature! :)
litterature? ;-)
Dave
Travis C. Porco
In article <6kkom2$jqk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <mhar...@itsnet.com> wrote:
>> In article <6kh9ld$b8t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <kraz...@usa.net> wrote:
>> >I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form of
>> >literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there got
>> >any suggestions?
>As someone who just lost a job at a research university because I write
>science fiction--my own literature--instead of articles about other people's,
>I think I may have some insight into this.
What should happen is that everyone who has a job in a literature
department should be REQUIRED to produce a commercially salable novel
or many short stories!
>Most people I know of consider
>science fiction to be a lesser form of art because it sells. Really! In my
>study of the past, I have found the same thing to hold true of a lot of
>authors who sell. You can look at the complaints that Nathaniel Hawthorne
>wrote about women authors who were selling his *** off in the 1800s in
>America, or the condescending tone of Wieland's introduction to Sophie von La
>Roche's Sternheim for the same thing. If it is popular, it must be bad. The
>reasoning behind this is that a large majority of people can't possibly like
>anything that is deep (read subversive here) because the large majority of
>people are idiots. So say the academics (they have to justify their lives
>somehow, eh?). That's it in a nutshell. Real literature can't sell.
Well, there's no doubt that higher quality things are probably less
popular, but there are many very unpopular things of zero quality.
More strange, much of what passes for higher or elevated taste these
days is artistically worthless and cannot be understood without
reference to the emperor's new clothes.
Simon van Dongen
On or about Wed, 27 May 1998 18:47:34 -0400, Elisabeth Carey wrote:
>kraz...@usa.net wrote:
>>
>> I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form of
>> literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there got
>> any suggestions?
>
>First define "valid".
>
>Then define "literature".
>
>Lis Carey
But please don't define science fiction. Or not here, at any rate.
BTW, does Usenet qualify as invalid literature?
Discuss
--
Simon van Dongen <sg...@pi.net> Rotterdam, The Netherlands
As he reclined there he sang ballads of ancient valour, from
time to time beating a hollow wooden duck in unison with his
voice, so that the charitable should have no excuse for
missing the entertainment. -Bramah, Kai Lung's Golden Hours
Emmanuel Baechler
>> Most people I know of consider science fiction to be a lesser form
>> of art because it sells.
There seems to be a sort of discrimination between two casts. Everybody
who writes something else that what a few people "true" litterature is
the subject of strong prejudices. This is not only true for science
fiction. It is also the case for many "crime" novelists (in french, we
use the expression "roman noir", i.e. "black novel"), while some of them
are at least as good as any "true" writer.
Science fiction has one more problem, it contains the word "science".
The mere word causes a quite strong repulsion in many litterary circles.
This is especially strong in the french speaking world. Here the
opposition is almost schizophrenic. A "traditionnal" writer cannot
consider the possibility that an enginneer or a sciencist starts
writing.
That a such person may be a good writer and that his (her) production
may be of interest is unthinkable.
Emmanuel Baechler
Lausanne
Switzerland
Jerry Cullingford
In article <484d87e61...@zetnet.co.uk>,
Dave <dave...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Or, if the book mentioned a group of new born cats, would it be
>litterature? ;-)
Well, if the kittens are subsequently eaten, then it should
certainly count as litterachewer :-).
--
_|_ Jerry Cullingford jerry.cu...@ffei.co.uk (Work)
/ | Fujifilm Electronic Imaging j...@selune.demon.co.uk (Home)
\_|_ Hemel Hempstead, UK PGP key at www.selune.demon.co.uk
\__/ (Speaking only for myself and not the company unless otherwise stated)
Larisa Migachyov
Simon van Dongen (sg...@pi.net) wrote:
: On or about Wed, 27 May 1998 18:47:34 -0400, Elisabeth Carey wrote:
:
: >kraz...@usa.net wrote:
: >>
: >> I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form of
: >> literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there got
: >> any suggestions?
: >
: >First define "valid".
: >
: >Then define "literature".
: >
: >Lis Carey
:
: But please don't define science fiction. Or not here, at any rate.
:
: BTW, does Usenet qualify as invalid literature?
:
: Discuss
Of course it does. Especially my posts.
--
Larisa Migachyov * Quant'e bella giovinezza
Biomedical Engineering * Che si fugge tuttavia!
Stanford University * Chi vuol esser lieto, sia;
http://www.stanford.edu/~lvm * Di doman non c'e certezza.
piranha
In article <199805272102...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Budwebster <budwe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I HATE this subject.
*heh*.
>Will it ever be "valid" to that group of yahoos who drop any writer once they
>sell more than 4,000 copies or make the Oprah book club? No, it won't, and all
>the essays and debate in the world won't change their minds.
precisely. i went thru a mercifully short stage in my life
(just before i hit 18) where i was such a yahoo, mainly as
a backlash reaction bcause the notion so many people seemed
to have of "unpopular = bad", and the things i liked tended
to be unpopular. then i grew up.
popular neither corresponds automatically to good, nor does
it correspond to bad. not having studied literature, i do
sometimes wonder how much of what we call lit now was actu-
ally quite popular in its day and has survived because of
that. i've certainly slugged thru some works of allegedly
literary merit without ever understanding just what was so
meritorious about them.
oprah (or whoever selects the books for her) has darn good
taste from what little i've seen. if she can manage to ex-
pose millions of people to that, even if they just begin to
read the books because oprah says so, well, that's not a
bad thing at all.
hey, maybe we could come up with a fine selection of SF to
suggest to her. ;-)
>Will this debate continue well into the next millenium? Without a doubt, so
>someone please, just shoot me now.
it'll be murder/suicide, if you don't mind.
-piranha
------------------------------------------------------------------------
please help fight spam -- http://www.cauce.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Clough
piranha wrote:
> I
>
> hey, maybe we could come up with a fine selection of SF to
> suggest to her. ;-)
>
Dear Oprah has already announced that she will never, ever soil herself by reading
that SF junk.
Brenda
--
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD from Tor Books
<clo...@erols.com> http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda
piranha
In article <356F1828...@erols.com>,
Brenda Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>piranha wrote:
>
>> hey, maybe we could come up with a fine selection of SF to
>> suggest to her. ;-)
>
>Dear Oprah has already announced that she will never, ever soil herself
>by reading that SF junk.
worked up enough to enlighten her (because of all the
talk show folks she strikes me as somebody who has at
least integrity). she has an awful lot of influence,
and it wouldn't hurt SF writers to have the genre over-
all acknowledged as containing worthwhile material by
somebody like her.
Brenda Clough
piranha wrote:
> really? got a reference for that? i might get myself
> worked up enough to enlighten her (because of all the
> talk show folks she strikes me as somebody who has at
> least integrity). she has an awful lot of influence,
> and it wouldn't hurt SF writers to have the genre over-
> all acknowledged as containing worthwhile material by
> somebody like her.
>
> -piranha
>
I mentioned Oprah's opinion at Baycon, and somebody in the audience had
actually seen the show in which she announced she'd never read SF. If you
can change her mind, for heaven's sake do! It's a tough enough ghetto as it
is. I feel sure Oprah's prejudice is founded on the more stupid books in
the genre. Get something by Ursula Le Guin into her hands, or THE
HANDMAID'S TALE by Margaret Atwood, and we're in like Flynn.
Jay Random
Brenda Clough wrote:
>
> I mentioned Oprah's opinion at Baycon, and somebody in the audience had
> actually seen the show in which she announced she'd never read SF. If you
> can change her mind, for heaven's sake do! It's a tough enough ghetto as it
> is. I feel sure Oprah's prejudice is founded on the more stupid books in
> the genre. Get something by Ursula Le Guin into her hands, or THE
> HANDMAID'S TALE by Margaret Atwood, and we're in like Flynn.
Actually, I doubt she's ever so much as read an SF book; most people
nowadays with that kind of bigoted attitude towards it haven't. Very
likely she has merely decided that since (1) she wasn't taught this
stuff in school, & (2) all those bug-hunt movies with the big SPFX
budgets are crap, it's not worth reading. This might be curable, but you
have to make her want to take the cure -- not an easy thing.
Worse yet, she might be one of these fruitbars who think SF is evil
because it contains that nasty word `science', & is therefore the
antithesis of bunnies & light & natural granola-eating New Age goodness.
(Lit'ry types have had this for generations, with or without the New Age
baggage added. Catherine Ford, formerly the associate editor of the
Calgary Herald -- my local paper of choice -- divides the world into
Word People & Number People; if you can handle math _at all_, or any
hard science, you're a Number People, & therefore barred from knowing
anything about Words. Oddly enough, she _likes_ science fiction.)
In either case, I am not sanguine about your prospects.
On the other hand, I don't suppose Oprah has any use for Tom Clancy,
either, & he is the only writer in history to have signed a contract for
a $100-million advance. There's gold in them thar ghettos.
--J. Random Riter In Tha Hood, D.G.F.V.
aurienne
Well, there's a Master's Degree in SF available from the university of
Liverpool, if that helps. (and yes, i'd go for it if I could afford a
year off, but a fellow-alumn from St. John's College is headed there this
fall, and I hope he'll tell me how it goes).
--
"The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of
a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the
top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower." --Robert Pirsig
***** auri...@webpixie.com ***** http://www.webpixie.com/ *****
John Van Sickle
Simon van Dongen wrote:
>
> BTW, does Usenet qualify as invalid literature?
Well, most of the stuff from AOL and WebTV does...
Dene Bebbington
kraz...@usa.net wrote:
>I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form of
>literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there got
>any suggestions?
Even after you've come up with some good definitions of "valid" and
"literature", you might want to ask whether it's important or matters
one jot.
--
Dene Bebbington http://www.bebbo.demon.co.uk
"Beside the braes of dawn. One clear new morning. Down where the lilies
stood in bloom. I knew that I was just a stranger in this world. A wind
just passing through." - Calum & Rory Macdonald (Runrig)
Alan Gore
Emmanuel Baechler <ebae...@hospvd.ch> wrote:
>Science fiction has one more problem, it contains the word "science".
>The mere word causes a quite strong repulsion in many litterary circles.
>This is especially strong in the french speaking world. Here the
>opposition is almost schizophrenic. A "traditionnal" writer cannot
>consider the possibility that an enginneer or a sciencist starts
>writing.
>That a such person may be a good writer and that his (her) production
>may be of interest is unthinkable.
This is a very strange attitude when you consider that France has been
a leader in high tech for years, in much the same way as Japan, taking
pains to develop technologies that other "advanced" countries are
afraid of. Supersonic travel and nuclear power come to mind. In fact,
the inspiration for much early American SF was the can-do attitude
expressed in the works of Jules Verne.
ag...@primenet.com | "Giving money and power to the government
Alan Gore | is like giving whiskey and car keys
Software For PC's | to teenaged boys" - P. J. O'Rourke
http://www.primenet.com/~agore
Dan Goodman
In article <6kq21k$5...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
Alan Gore <ag...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Emmanuel Baechler <ebae...@hospvd.ch> wrote:
>
>>Science fiction has one more problem, it contains the word "science".
>>The mere word causes a quite strong repulsion in many litterary circles.
>>This is especially strong in the french speaking world. Here the
>>opposition is almost schizophrenic. A "traditionnal" writer cannot
>>consider the possibility that an enginneer or a sciencist starts
>>writing.
>>That a such person may be a good writer and that his (her) production
>>may be of interest is unthinkable.
>
>This is a very strange attitude when you consider that France has been
>a leader in high tech for years,
No stranger than Ireland having both a whiskey industry and a temperance
movement. Or the US having an anti-capitalist tradition on the right,
while others on the right consider capitalism one of the good parts of
American tradition. Or northern Italy having had political parties and
factions which opposed the Pope for several hundred years.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Phil Hunt
In article <356EA0...@hospvd.ch>
ebae...@hospvd.ch "Emmanuel Baechler" writes:
> Science fiction has one more problem, it contains the word "science".
I think this is at the root of the phenomenon. Many literary types
are too stupid/lazy to understand science, so they fear and hate it,
and consequently are emotionally predisposed to dislike SF. Some go
so far as to calim that anything that is good cannot be SF (_1984_
being a good example of this).
--
* * Phil Hunt * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Eurolang, la lang qui tu pos lernar in week-fini. Vidu: *
* Eurolang, the language you can learn in a weekend. See: *
* <http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/eurolang.htm> *
* * * * * * * * * Comuna dua lang per la EU * * * * * * * * * *
WooF
On the subject of the Liberal Arts Professors' distain for science, Isaac
Asimov described a faculty meeting at Boston University: When mention was
made of a student named Milton failing English, and one named Keats doing
the same, everyone laughed, science and liberal arts professors alike;
when mention was made of a student named Gauss failing math, only the
science folk laughed. When they explained to the liberal arts folk that
an earlier Gauss was one of the greatest of mathematicians, the liberal
arts folk made it clear that they intended to forget that as soon as they
could.
George Scithers of owls...@netaxs.com
David Langford
On 28 May 1998 14:24:14 GMT, jim...@acpub.duke.edu (James Battista) wrote:
>in _Hyperion_ the SF aspects are
>pushing irrelvancy (not surprising given that it's a retelling of
>_The Canterbury Tales_.
Well ... in the same sense that =The Stars My Destination= is a retelling
of =The Count of Monte Cristo=. Both Bester and Simmons inserted some
rather relevant sf bits into their "retellings", I thought.
(Exercise for students: name the precise =Canterbury Tales= equivalents of
the farcasters, the fatline, the cruciforms, the TechnoCore, the Time
Tombs, the Shrike and John Keats. Be prepared to defend your choices.)
Dave
--
David Langford
ans...@cix.co.uk | http://www.ansible.demon.co.uk/
Packard Bell
Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> a écrit dans l'article
<$+2kYDAh6$b1EwB$@bebbo.demon.co.uk>...
> kraz...@usa.net wrote:
> >I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form
of
> >literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there
got
> >any suggestions?
>
All sorts of themes are tackled in SF. The difference is that SF is off the
beaten track by re-inventing literature.Write by drawing one's imagination
take all its sense with Sf.I don't know if you understood me 'cause I'm
french and my english is not very good.I advise you to read Franck HERBERT
's saga :Dune.
Adrian Smith
>Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> a écrit dans l'article
><$+2kYDAh6$b1EwB$@bebbo.demon.co.uk>...
>> kraz...@usa.net wrote:
>> >I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form
>of
>> >literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there
>got
>> >any suggestions?
You could ask why the concept of a valid form of literature exists in
the first place, other than as a way for those involved in it to pour
scorn on those outside. Although quite a lot of SF seems to be 'pulp' -
look at the increase in productivity brought about by wordprocessors
among many SF authors, paralleled among romance writers. Producers of
"serious" literature don't generally contract for trilogies, AFAIK.
I've heard of an essay by James Blish (I think) on why SF will never
produce a literary classic, but I've never managed to track it down. The
fact that 1984 and Brave New World, written by authors who'd already
made mainstream names for themselves, get literary consideration is
interesting. Angela Carter used to try and stand up for SF, but not to
much effect.
There's a bit about SF and other genres in David Lodge's chapter of
Malcolm Bradbury's The Novel Today : "...they also tend to draw
inspiration from certain popular forms of literature, or subliterature,
in which the arousal and gratification of very basic fictional appetites
(such as wonder, wish fulfillment, suspense) are only loosely controlled
by the disciplines of realism : especially science fiction, pornography
and the thriller." I think the bit about the disciplines of realism
would be at the core of most literary types' dismissal of SF as a genre
with artistic potential. SF has too much freedom, and art requires
limits. It would be like making sculptures out of plastic. Too easy.
--
Adrian Smith
Helen Kenyon
In article <cNwhULAu...@millenia3.demon.co.uk>, Adrian Smith
<Adr...@millenia3.demon.co.uk> writes
David Lodge also says (in his own book _The Art of Fiction_) the
following: "Popular science fiction, for instance, is a curious mixture
of invented gadgetry and archetypal narrative motifs very obviously
derived from folk tale, fairy tale and Scripture, recycling the myths of
Creation, Fall, Flood and a Divine Saviour, for the secular but still
superstitious age." He goes on to liken the love affair in Orwell's
1984 to the story of Adam and Eve.
So what then is literary fiction about? I have to confess, I never
knowlingly read it. According to one radio discusion I caught part of
the other day, at least one branch seems to focus on adultery in North
London.
Helen
--
Helen Kenyon, Gwynedd, Wales *** ken...@baradel.demon.co.uk
**PLEASE DELETE the extra bit from e-mail address if replying by mail**
Joseph Abbott
Science fiction is the only form of literature worth writing. It is
the most relivant to our lives. Everything else is meaningless tripe.
I mean, what are you doing right now? Reading messages over the
internet? THAT'S science fiction.
Joseph Abbott
<http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3312/>
* Add to my interactive never-ending story *
Brenda Clough
Joseph Abbott wrote:
> Science fiction is the only form of literature worth writing.
Alas, 'tis true. I can sort of edge up to the frontier of the genre, but
I can't ever seem to write a book that isn't at bottom SF. I tried once,
and it was impossible -- I had to create an underlayer of SFnal stuff
before I could finish writing it.
Julian Flood
Golding. Nobel prize. Wrote Pincher Martin, Lord of the Flies, The
Inheritors. All SF.
Tell it to someone who doesn't like scifi and he'll say 'But that can't be
sci-fi, that's good."
--
Julian Flood
jul...@argonet.co.uk
Life: much too important to be taken seriously.
Adrian Smith
In article <na.3f97dd4852...@argonet.co.uk>, Julian Flood
<jul...@argonet.co.uk> writes
> Golding. Nobel prize. Wrote Pincher Martin, Lord of the Flies, The
>Inheritors. All SF.
Haven't read the others but LOTF just uses a nuclear war (a possible
*current* event) to set the scene. I can't think of much SF that does
that.
> Tell it to someone who doesn't like scifi and he'll say 'But that can't be
>sci-fi, that's good."
Everybody knows it's about snobbery.
--
Adrian Smith
Adrian Smith
In article <OslrcOAL...@baradel.demon.co.uk>, Helen Kenyon
<ken...@baradel.demon.co.uk.PLEASE-DELETE.THIS> writes
>David Lodge also says (in his own book _The Art of Fiction_) the
>following: "Popular science fiction, for instance, is a curious mixture
>of invented gadgetry and archetypal narrative motifs very obviously
>derived from folk tale, fairy tale and Scripture, recycling the myths of
>Creation, Fall, Flood and a Divine Saviour, for the secular but still
>superstitious age." He goes on to liken the love affair in Orwell's
>1984 to the story of Adam and Eve.
>
>So what then is literary fiction about? I have to confess, I never
>knowlingly read it.
I don't consume much myself. Trying to speak for a group I haven't been
appointed by, I think litterateurs might say you begin from reality
whatever that is, not designing your world to make whatever plot you
fancy plausible. Lodge does say *popular* SF - it isn't clear from the
context whether he believes there's any other kind . There are arguments
about magical realism to be had.
>According to one radio discusion I caught part of
>the other day, at least one branch seems to focus on adultery in North
>London.
Is that where Martin Amis lives? Eurgh. I hold no brief for current Brit
lit, though I seem to remember reading somewhere that it was suffering
from an identity crisis, poor thing. There seem to be a lot of Clever
Young Things about, and I feel that someone else can read them. I'm
still trying to make sense of the nineteenth century myself.
I think the point is that SF's a *market*. It's the stuff with
spaceships on the cover, whether there are spaceships in the story or
not. There are some people working at the borderline between SF and
literature, but there are a lot more who are happy in the ghetto.
--
Adrian Smith
Adrian Smith
In article <357c04d8...@news.lynx.bc.ca>, Joseph Abbott
<jabbott@{remove}lynx.bc.ca> writes
>
>Science fiction is the only form of literature worth writing. It is
>the most relivant to our lives.
A decision to be taken on an individual basis, perhaps.
>Everything else is meaningless tripe.
>I mean, what are you doing right now? Reading messages over the
>internet? THAT'S science fiction.
Why? I mean, it's *new*, but...
--
Adrian Smith
WooF
One thing that might be tilting outsiders toward the notion that sci-fi
and/or science fiction isn't literature is the McBooks -- that is, SF
books built around Star Trek and other TV or movie settings.
George Scithers of owls...@netaxs.com
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
Excerpts from netnews.rec.arts.sf.composition: 9-Jun-98 Re: Is Science
Fiction lite.. by Jay Ran...@shaw.wave.ca
> The _attitude_ of science fiction -- that change is all, that the world
> tomorrow will not be the same as the world today, that technology is
> important & drives the evolution of human society -- has finally become
> embedded in the worldview of ordinary human beings. It is no longer the
Ordinary Western human beings, perhaps. There's a big, complicated world
out there, just waiting for you to explore and enjoy.
> preserve of geeks, engineers, nickel-a-word prophets, & teenagers in
> Spock suits; the general population understands that change is really
> happening _& affecting their daily lives_, & will go on doing so. Any
> writing that speaks to this understanding is science fiction almost by
> definition. Any writing that does not can hardly be called `realistic'
> or `mainstream'.
You paint with too broad a stroke. You describe a vague attitude and
then claim that "all writing that speaks to this understanding is
science fiction almost by definion". Given the above one could easily
classify e.g. Emile Zola's _La Bete Humaine_ as science fiction; the
story draws its motive power from the social change brought about by the
railroad--the novel takes place in the rail yards of France on the eve
of the fall of the second republic and the Franco-Prussian War. Forget
that. Even Virgil's _AENEID_ could be construed as science fiction given
the above; the poet describes titanic political and social change and
depicts in grim detail (as did his exemplar, Homer) a technology-driven
social order (e.g. the ships, the fortifications, the weaponry, military
operations, urban and agricultural organization, metallurgy,
architecture etc., etc.).
What *wouldn't* be science fiction in your estimation? And what do you
think you gain by so broadening the notion of science fiction?
http://english-server.hss.cmu.edu/home/wilkes/
Jay Random
As Norman Spinrad has pointed out, if you try to write a contemporary
novel without any attempt at technological or sociological extrapolation
from current conditions, it will turn into a historical on you before it
hits the racks. It appears as if the best `mainstream' novelists are
indeed giving up & retreating into the historical novel, leaving the
present to `tomorrow's-headlines' writers like Clancy. (Who has
inherited one hellacious truckload of money along with that territory.)
The _attitude_ of science fiction -- that change is all, that the world
tomorrow will not be the same as the world today, that technology is
important & drives the evolution of human society -- has finally become
embedded in the worldview of ordinary human beings. It is no longer the
preserve of geeks, engineers, nickel-a-word prophets, & teenagers in
Spock suits; the general population understands that change is really
happening _& affecting their daily lives_, & will go on doing so. Any
writing that speaks to this understanding is science fiction almost by
definition. Any writing that does not can hardly be called `realistic'
or `mainstream'.
--J. Random Slipstreamer, D.G.F.V.
Aahz Maruch
In article <cNwhULAu...@millenia3.demon.co.uk>,
Adrian Smith <adr...@millenia3.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>There's a bit about SF and other genres in David Lodge's chapter of
>Malcolm Bradbury's The Novel Today : "...they also tend to draw
>inspiration from certain popular forms of literature, or subliterature,
>in which the arousal and gratification of very basic fictional appetites
>(such as wonder, wish fulfillment, suspense) are only loosely controlled
>by the disciplines of realism : especially science fiction, pornography
>and the thriller." I think the bit about the disciplines of realism
>would be at the core of most literary types' dismissal of SF as a genre
>with artistic potential. SF has too much freedom, and art requires
>limits. It would be like making sculptures out of plastic. Too easy.
Yes and no. It's true that the discipline of the sonnett creates
constraints that make it easier to appreciate the work of the author.
But the best free verse has its own rigorous internal structure,
difficult as it may be to tease out. In a very real sense, science
fiction almost has the reverse problem; because of the constraint of
realism, "literary works" in my perception are freed from the
constraints of everyday, clear language.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
"...changing the world one flame at a time." --SFJ
Matt Moffett
Packard Bell wrote:
>
> Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> a écrit dans l'article
> <$+2kYDAh6$b1EwB$@bebbo.demon.co.uk>...
> > kraz...@usa.net wrote:
> > >I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form
> of
> > >literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there
> got
> > >any suggestions?
by Larry McCaffery. He's a post-modern critic and theorist fighting to
give "literary" sci-fi writers their due credit. I can't remember the
full title right now, but look for the collection of cyperpunk fiction
he put out a couple of years ago...my public library carries it, so most
should. Half is fiction, the other half are essays by various people,
many trying to tackle this problem. Also look for his collection _After
Yesterday's Crash...The Avant-Pop Anthology_, and check out the magazine
"Science Fiction Eye"....they tend to have good essays and interviews.
What you need to be asking yourself is who are the writers who use
sci-fi and are considered literary, and what do they do to set them
apart from the non-literary sci-fi writers? In my opinion the big
difference is that a "literary" writer uses technology, aliens,
alternate realms, whatever, in a way that is symbolic and expressive
beyond the plot device, while another sci-fi writer is writing about
spaceships to write about spaceships.
A few writers who have worked in sci-fi and gotten literary
acceptance:
Kurt Vonnegut
Thomas Pynchon
J.G. Ballard
William S. Burroughs
Don Delillo (for White Noise)
Kathy Acker
A few sci-fi guys who may or may not straddle the literary line,
depending on your point of view:
Bruce Sterling
William Gibson
Ray Bradbury
Philip K. Dick
Harlan Ellison
Stanislaw Lem
You could even bring in the idea of writers already accepted as literary
beginning to dabble with sf themes like John Updike's newest novel
(although I'm told it's pretty crappy), Ted Mooney's _Easy Travel to
Other Planets_, and Lightman's _Einstein's Dreams_.
Good luck. I hope you keep posting questions who have here...this is
a discussion I think most here should have an interest in.
Matt
Jacob Andersen
Jay Random wrote in message <357C91...@shaw.wave.ca>...
>Adrian Smith wrote:
>>
>> In article <357c04d8...@news.lynx.bc.ca>, Joseph Abbott
>> <jabbott@{remove}lynx.bc.ca> writes
>> >
>> >Science fiction is the only form of literature worth writing. It is
>> >the most relivant to our lives.
[...]
>The _attitude_ of science fiction -- that change is all, that the world
>tomorrow will not be the same as the world today, that technology is
>important & drives the evolution of human society -- has finally become
>embedded in the worldview of ordinary human beings.
But not for all people. You should have heard an argument which I
had with my parents the other day on this very subject; they agreed
that the technological revolution had changed the world, but adamantly
held to the idea that this revolution has reached it's peak. They didn't
use the phrase "all's been invented", but that was their meaning.
Pointing out to them the fact that this evolution can be described in
terms of a steepening (is that a word?) curve, and the likelyhood
of it just suddenly tapering out (or going dead flat) for no real
reason (they had no argument whatsoever for this to be happening)
is pretty low, did not meet with any comprehension.
Many people don't reason about things in a logical manner. I'm not
sure exactly by which process we form our opinions.
Maybe it's something of a generational thing. Maybe I'll get to be the
same when I grow old?
>--J. Random Slipstreamer, D.G.F.V.
/Jacob
(remove "FOO" to email)
Keith
> > Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> a écrit dans l'article
> > <$+2kYDAh6$b1EwB$@bebbo.demon.co.uk>...
> > > kraz...@usa.net wrote:
> > > >I am writing an essay on whether or not Science Fiction is a valid form
> > of
> > > >literature, and I'm having troble forming arguments. Anyone out there
> > got
> > > >any suggestions?
Easy. I had a class i was teaching turn into a discussion like this. On
whether popular lit., i.e. King, Clancy, etc., was Lit. Lit., as in, doing
more for a person than just making them afraid of sewers, or giving them a
basis for missile paranoia. Simplest definition, and this can be warped if not
taken honestly: broadening a person's mind.
So, yes, there are definitely books that fall into the genre of sci-fi that
qualify as classic, canonical Literature. Wells and Vonnegut are the easiest
examples, though I personally would say Morrow. However, as with any of the
more recently categorized genres, not enough time has passed to entrench the
majority of sci-fi writers into a canonical position. It's far easier to
accept someone who sticks to the older forms; play, poem: free verse or not, as
being of a quality associated with Literature. No one sane is going to dispute
Wordsworth's station. He's been dead about 100 years, he's still great.
Also, and this is a modern phenomena, the more popular the genre, the more trash
gets shoveled into it. As someone else mentioned, the wall of ST/D&D books can
be hard to get over.
Comparativist example: when courtly romances (the romance of the rose, tristan
and iseult, most of the Arthurian tales) first came around, they were told to
the courts of women that had been left alone by their crusading husbands.
mostly considered meaningless pulp fiction. now, it's completely accepted to
deal with any of them as high literature. given, i doubt bear and steakley are
ever going to be more than they are now, but... If you can tease out of a text
anything beyond a-->b-->c blew up c-->b-->a, there's a good bet you can make an
argument it's literature.
__
ben
Joseph Abbott
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:21:36 +0200, "Jacob Andersen" <ja...@FOOjob.se>
[big snip]
>Maybe it's something of a generational thing. Maybe I'll get to be the
>same when I grow old?
The elderly are involuntary time travellers into a radically changed
future they cant understand. I think as your grow old, your tolerances
for change decreases dramatically. You brain gets lock into certain
patterns that are very hard to break. This was probably hard for any
generation, but even more so now because the rate of change has
increased so much.