Science fiction and Literature: A Category Mistake?
Daniel Read
arises frequently on this newsgroup. Invariably, someone says something
like 'all SF is crap' (in a more civilized way) and then the shit starts
to fly. The strategy of both groups is to come up with some way of
defining 'good literature' in such a way that it includes the works
that they like (in the case of the defenders of SF) and so that it
excludes the works that they don't like (in the case of the offenders).
I am on the side of the offenders. I really think that science fiction
is trash and not worthy of serious attention. However, while this
position is relatively easy to maintain when considering the majority
of SF writers, there are some authors (I think William Burroughs is
the best example) who write fiction of a very high standard and yet
could clearly be categorized as SF writers. Thinking about this
has made me realize that the whole debate regarding the SF/mainstream
literature distinction is based on a category mistake.
Let me put this crudely:
'Mainstream literature' is a class of works defined by their loftiness
of purpose. They are the 'high art' of literature.
'SF' is a class of works defined by their content.
[Regardless of whether you agree with my definitions ... which I am
hardly committed to ... I think you can see my point.]
If a work of 'SF' has a lofty purpose then it is a mainstream work as well.
If a work of mainstream literature is about, for example, spaceships
then it is also SF.
I suggest that once we recognize that 'Mainstream literature' and 'SF'
are categories based on independent criteria, then we will also
recognize that the debate is essentially meaningless.
Science fiction fans often complain because mainstream critics do not
acknowledge works of SF. In fact, this is simply not true. There is a
substantial body of criticism about Edgar Allen Poe, Mary Shelley, H. G.
Wells, William Burroughs and even J. G. Ballard and William Gibson.
However, most SF novels do not merit that kind of analysis and
consequently do not receive it.
daniel
Jim Mann
> The question of the relative merits of SF and 'Mainstream' literature
> arises frequently on this newsgroup. Invariably, someone says something
> like 'all SF is crap' (in a more civilized way) and then the shit starts
> to fly. The strategy of both groups is to come up with some way of
> defining 'good literature' in such a way that it includes the works
> that they like (in the case of the defenders of SF) and so that it
> excludes the works that they don't like (in the case of the offenders).
> I am on the side of the offenders. I really think that science fiction
> is trash and not worthy of serious attention. However, while this
> position is relatively easy to maintain when considering the majority
> of SF writers, there are some authors (I think William Burroughs is
> the best example) who write fiction of a very high standard and yet
> could clearly be categorized as SF writers. Thinking about this
> has made me realize that the whole debate regarding the SF/mainstream
> literature distinction is based on a category mistake.
You're probably correct that a good percentage of SF is trash. However,
I think that there are more than one or two writers of literary merit
(which you imply) in the field. Ursula Le Guin, Gene Wolfe, Theodore
Sturgeon, Thomas Disch, J.G. Ballard, and Robert Silverberg have all
been mentioned as part of this thread, and all have produced some very
good pieces of fiction.
In fact, the percentage of good writing in SF (at least 10 years or so ago,
before the glut of mush fantasy and military SF that seems to continue to
overwhelm the shelves in the bookstores) was higher than that in the
mainstream. There is an awful lot of crap in the mainstream, ranging from
Harold Robbins and Danielle Steele to Robert Ludlum.
> Let me put this crudely:
> 'Mainstream literature' is a class of works defined by their loftiness
> of purpose. They are the 'high art' of literature.
Fine, as long as you are differentiating between "mainstream literature"
and the mainstream as a whole. Certainly Robert Ludlum and Danielle Steele
are not defined by "loftiness of purpose."
> 'SF' is a class of works defined by their content.
>
> [Regardless of whether you agree with my definitions ... which I am
> hardly committed to ... I think you can see my point.]
>
> If a work of 'SF' has a lofty purpose then it is a mainstream work as well.
> If a work of mainstream literature is about, for example, spaceships
> then it is also SF.
Why not, then, drop the "mainstream" from your category names. Both SF and
the mainstream are in a sense defined by their content. Literature is
the good stuff (defined by your "loftiness of purpose" or whatever. I think
there are other ways to define this also).
> I suggest that once we recognize that 'Mainstream literature' and 'SF'
> are categories based on independent criteria, then we will also
> recognize that the debate is essentially meaningless.
> Science fiction fans often complain because mainstream critics do not
> acknowledge works of SF. In fact, this is simply not true. There is a
> substantial body of criticism about Edgar Allen Poe, Mary Shelley, H. G.
> Wells, William Burroughs and even J. G. Ballard and William Gibson.
> However, most SF novels do not merit that kind of analysis and
> consequently do not receive it.
One problem is that there are a handful of SF writers who haven't received
this attention but deserve it. Theodore Sturgeon and Gene Wolfe come to
mind.
The other problem is that many readers who don't read SF try picking up
an SF book or two at random (and probably wind up with Jack Chalker
and Piers Anthony, which would be enough to make you swear off the field
for life). They then conclude, based on this random selection, that
the field is crap. (SF fans do the same thing in reverse by the way. They
try a mainstream best seller or two and conclude the mainstream is
crap. If all I had read in the mainstream was Robert Ludlum, I'd probably
come to the same conclusion.)
Much of this comes from the lack of good criticism of SF in mainstream
publications. Much of it comes from SF fans, many of whom, when asked
for recommendations, recommend the field's good adventure writers (which is
fine if that's what you're looking for, but is often not what the reader is
looking for). Many of the SF awards (such as the Hugo) have also been given
to these adventure stories. Again, there is no problem with this. They are
often good books of their type (the same way Tom Clancy's books are
good high-tech adventure thrillers). However, they are often of little
interest to those who don't like that sort of thing. They have few merits
outside of being good, imaginative adventure stories, and thus your typical
"literature" reader won't care for them any more than he/she would care
for Tom Clancy or Ian Fleming. All of this makes it more likely that
the mainstream reader who wants to sample the field will pick the "wrong"
book.
Oh, well, enough of beating this dead horse. On to other things.
Jim Mann jm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Stratus Computer
Janet M. Lafler
>arises frequently on this newsgroup. Invariably, someone says something
>like 'all SF is crap' (in a more civilized way) and then the shit starts
>to fly. The strategy of both groups is to come up with some way of
>defining 'good literature' in such a way that it includes the works
>that they like (in the case of the defenders of SF) and so that it
>excludes the works that they don't like (in the case of the offenders).
>I am on the side of the offenders.
Well, I'm one of the defenders and that was not what I was trying to do.
What I maintain is not that "good literature" can include SF, but that
the objectives and traditions of SF are distinct and therefore it needs
to be judged by different (not "lower" standards).
>I really think that science fiction
>is trash and not worthy of serious attention. However, while this
>position is relatively easy to maintain when considering the majority
>of SF writers, there are some authors (I think William Burroughs is
>the best example) who write fiction of a very high standard and yet
>could clearly be categorized as SF writers. Thinking about this
>has made me realize that the whole debate regarding the SF/mainstream
>literature distinction is based on a category mistake.
>
>Let me put this crudely:
>'Mainstream literature' is a class of works defined by their loftiness
>of purpose. They are the 'high art' of literature.
>
>'SF' is a class of works defined by their content.
Well, that's an interesting point, but it leaves out too much. For one
thing, "SF" and "mainstream" (or simply "literature") are not only cate-
gories based on coherent distinctions between works, they are publisher's
categories, and therefore somewhat arbitrary. Certainly there are works
that get labelled SF and mainstream which are very similar in content;
books by SF writers which have no SF or fantasy elements are often labelled
SF anyway. As far as publishing categories go, I think you could argue
that mainstream literature, as much as any other genre, is defined by its
content. It's just that since that content is what we consider literarily
neutral (not marking it as "genre fiction") we don't consciously recognize
the elements of content that cause us to categorize something as mainstream.
Now, I realize that you weren't necessarily saying that publishers' defin-
titions of what is mainstream and your subjective definition of what is
mainstream are identical, but from your attitude to SF (and genre literature
in general?) I get the sense that there's a pretty close fit there.
When you define "mainstream literature" as "the good stuff," you make the
assumption that everything that is good can be recognized as such by the
same criteria. I don't think this is true, and that is what makes the cat-
egorization of SF (by content, because nobody has figured out a better way
to do it) worth doing. There are certainly SF writers who can be judged
good writers by "mainstream" criteria, but that's not what I, for one, am
interested in doing. I don't think that SF writers ought to beg for accep-
tance from the literary establishment.
>If a work of 'SF' has a lofty purpose then it is a mainstream work as well.
Gee, thanks.
>Science fiction fans often complain because mainstream critics do not
>acknowledge works of SF. In fact, this is simply not true. There is a
>substantial body of criticism about Edgar Allen Poe, Mary Shelley, H. G.
>Wells, William Burroughs and even J. G. Ballard and William Gibson.
>However, most SF novels do not merit that kind of analysis and
>consequently do not receive it.
You realize, of course, that only the last two of these writers are genre
SF writers. Poe, Shelley and Wells wrote before the category of SF existed,
and Burroughs isn't generally considered an SF writer, though his work can
be defined as SF.
I agree with you that most SF novels don't deserve the kind of anaylsis that
they get from academic and literary critics. I've read a fair number of
articles in the scholarly SF journals, and they're generally really bad;
they're written by people who obviously know nothing about SF, but have
read a couple of novels and were surprised and delighted to find that they
aren't trash. They don't understand the traditions of the genre, and they
assume, as you do, that SF can only be good insofar as it's like mainstream
literature.
Grrr.
I've noticed in the past that any long post I make on SF in this newsgroup
gets pretty much ignored, so I don't know why I bother. Oh well.
/Janet
--
send mail to: repn...@leland.stanford.edu
"We're living in a PROTESTANT POLICE STATE and all I'M worried about is getting
a job so I can help perpetuate the paranoid patriarchal DEATH culture!"
--Mo
fielden j.a.
>'Mainstream literature' is a class of works defined by their loftiness
>of purpose. They are the 'high art' of literature.
I tend not to think of mainstream as the "high art" of literature. I think
of classics as the high art of literature. Many novels come to mind that
are considered mainstream that don't have the loftiness of purpose.
>
>'SF' is a class of works defined by their content.
To me it seems more that they are defined by their environment/context.
High-tech, futuristic, speculative.
>
>[Regardless of whether you agree with my definitions ... which I am
>hardly committed to ... I think you can see my point.]
yes I can.
>
>If a work of 'SF' has a lofty purpose then it is a mainstream work as well.
>If a work of mainstream literature is about, for example, spaceships
>then it is also SF.
By your definition it would be. However there a great many people who
never examine the content. If it is SF by context/environment it is
immediately discarded as being pulp-type literature without redeeming
qualities.
>
>I suggest that once we recognize that 'Mainstream literature' and 'SF'
>are categories based on independent criteria, then we will also
>recognize that the debate is essentially meaningless.
>
>Science fiction fans often complain because mainstream critics do not
>acknowledge works of SF. In fact, this is simply not true. There is a
>substantial body of criticism about Edgar Allen Poe, Mary Shelley, H. G.
>Wells, William Burroughs and even J. G. Ballard and William Gibson.
>However, most SF novels do not merit that kind of analysis and
>consequently do not receive it.
This is changing. However I wanted to write a paper on science-fiction
back in the early '80s on science-fiction and eventually had to abandon
it because of the lack of research done on it. What started as a simple
paper began to take on the proportions of a master's thesis. The first
class on science fiction as literature was taught at UTEP in 1983 or 84
by the now president of Evergreen College(whose name escapes me at the moment).
My point is that there is still a tendency to immediately classify _all_
SF oriented works with the pulp Westerns and romances just because of
their setting without regard to the content and that it will be awhile
before some SF works have attained the stature they merit based on
content and craftsmanship of the author.
-jf
Vance Maverick
|> Let me put this crudely:
|> 'Mainstream literature' is a class of works defined by their loftiness
|> of purpose. They are the 'high art' of literature.
|>
|> 'SF' is a class of works defined by their content.
|>
|> [Regardless of whether you agree with my definitions ... which I am
|> hardly committed to ... I think you can see my point.]
No. Purpose is simply inadequate for defining literature. Usually authorial
intention is inaccessible to us the readers. In some cases, we can even show
that the purpose of the author, at least the public purpose, was incompatible
with the present use of the writing as literature. The stock example of this
is the essays of George Orwell; any "occasional" writing which continues to be
read once the occasion is past will do.
Besides, I (the instigator of this edition of the lit-vs-SF wars) did not
contrast SF to some unitary body called Literature. I don't know what that
is. I just wondered why I disliked SF books.
You have not successfully distinguished SF from any other genre instances of
which are considered lit: take "Victorian Novel." Your argument can easily be
converted to this case. /Coningsby/ -- mere Victorian novel. /Middlemarch/
-- literature. (Try to distinguish *these* by purpose!)
How is your position different from "Sturgeon's Law"?
Vance
RM...@psuvm.psu.edu
Daniel gives, at length, the exchange:
Literary Purist "All SF is crap"
SF reader "But _this_ is good"
Literary Purist "Then is isn't SF"
.. first noted by SF readers many years ago. Not to be confused with the
exchange at a cocktail party:
Literary Purist "90% of SF is crap"
Theodore Sturgeon "90% of _everything_ is crap"
It does seem interesting that the Purists are awfully vehement about a
body of writing that, by their own definition, they've never read. Not,
of course, that reading it would change their minds. Has anyone ever
read a book with the conviction that it was going to be badly written and
then had their mind changed by the book? Unlikely.
On a related note, it is possible that the Purists outright don't know
_how_ to read science fiction. Consider: "The speedometer passed 80, but
the dogs were still closing in." A Purist would either throw the book
away instantly, or possibly start wondering about what was 'actually' intended
by the passage. An SF reader sees the line and figures that wherever the
characters are, there are dogs capable of running over 80. (mph, lets say
for specificity). This is then an important clue to the nature of the world
the characters are in. The Purist already _knows_ his world; do not tamper.
I had that experience with an English lit major. Off and on, I'd suggest
SF for her to read (she being in the All SF is crap school), she'd read it
and dislike it. I ran across a mention (different example) of 'how to read'
SF and passed that along and suggested that she reread one of the books
(_Childhood's End_ Arthur C. Clarke). This time around she liked the book.
By the way. The sentence I used for example is taken (badly marred by
fallible memory) from an actual book. (Those who recognized it can
quibble with me about whether it is SF or Fantasy.)
Bob Grumbine
Don't judge a book by its cover.
Vance Maverick
|>
|> On a related note, it is possible that the Purists outright don't know
|> _how_ to read science fiction. Consider: "The speedometer passed 80, but
|> the dogs were still closing in." A Purist would either throw the book
|> away instantly, or possibly start wondering about what was 'actually' intended
|> by the passage. An SF reader sees the line and figures that wherever the
|> characters are, there are dogs capable of running over 80. (mph, lets say
|> for specificity). This is then an important clue to the nature of the world
|> the characters are in. The Purist already _knows_ his world; do not tamper.
Several people have privately mailed me about this inadequacy of mainstream-lit
readers. Frankly, I'm puzzled that SF readers think everything else is literal
realism. Or that in apparently realistic work, one doesn't have to use clues in a
sentence to adjust one's perception of the story. Classic example from a realist
novel: "In the fall the war was always there, but we did not go to it any more."
[A few words may be mixed up in there, but the sense is right, and the
ostentatious evasion of surface sentiment.] If there's something special about
the use of SF, it has to lie deeper than this.
Vance
Joan Shields
>'Mainstream literature' is a class of works defined by their loftiness
>of purpose. They are the 'high art' of literature.
>
>'SF' is a class of works defined by their content.
>
>[Regardless of whether you agree with my definitions ... which I am
>hardly committed to ... I think you can see my point.]
Your definition of Mainstream literature is fairly cheap in that it
is designed to specifically hold up your argument. I have always been
under the assumption that Mainstream literature is middle-of-the-road
literature - the kinds of books most people read. I've never heard it
used to describe "works defined by their loftiness of purpose" (which
tends to get very subjective).
Can someone please post the publishers' definition of "Mainstream
Literature" ?
Joan
I happen to like well written SF, mosty hard SF. I also like well-written
and well-constructed mysteries. I like a good story in any genre.
Vance Maverick
|>
|> Can someone please post the publishers' definition of "Mainstream
|> Literature" ?
There are several conflicting senses of the word Literature bouncing around in
here. Let me name a few -- I can't provide great definitions, but I think
you'll know what I mean.
* Pieces of writing taught in the academy, in certain classrooms
* Pieces of writing preserved to us by our culture(s) in certain ways
* Things in books to be found on certain shelves in shops
* Writing that is "good"
* Writing that meets certain criteria (such as not serving any purpose)
* Writing that is pretentious in some way
In this discussion, we have been using various more unusual senses, such as
"Writing not classed in any more exclusive category" and "Realist fiction".
I'm sure there are more: suggestions welcome.
Vance
Daniel Read
>
>Well, I'm one of the defenders and that was not what I was trying to do.
>What I maintain is not that "good literature" can include SF, but that
>the objectives and traditions of SF are distinct and therefore it needs
>to be judged by different (not "lower" standards).
>
mistake I alluded to in my post. Judging literature is not a
process of matching works to a set of pre-defined standards, but a
process of analysis and evaluation where the work itself generates its
standards.
>>Let me put this crudely:
>>'Mainstream literature' is a class of works defined by their loftiness
>>of purpose. They are the 'high art' of literature.
>>
>>'SF' is a class of works defined by their content.
>
>Well, that's an interesting point, but it leaves out too much. For one
>thing, "SF" and "mainstream" (or simply "literature") are not only cate-
>gories based on coherent distinctions between works, they are publisher's
>categories, and therefore somewhat arbitrary.
They are not publisher's distinctions. They are not distinctions at all.
They are independent modes of classification. That means that a work can
be SF-mainstream, nonSF-mainstream, SF-nonmainstream, nonSF-nonmainstream.
To contrast them is to enter into the category mistake that causes all the
trouble.
Incidentally, I don't like the term
'mainstream literature', but it is the term used by SF apologists and
so I adopted it.
As far as publishing categories go, I think you could argue
>that mainstream literature, as much as any other genre, is defined by its
>content. It's just that since that content is what we consider literarily
>neutral (not marking it as "genre fiction") we don't consciously recognize
>the elements of content that cause us to categorize something as mainstream.
hat aspect of the content of William Burroughs or Edgar Allan Poe makes
their work 'mainstream'?
>Now, I realize that you weren't necessarily saying that publishers' defin-
>titions of what is mainstream and your subjective definition of what is
>mainstream are identical, but from your attitude to SF (and genre literature
>in general?) I get the sense that there's a pretty close fit there.
think I have already addressed this point.
>
>When you define "mainstream literature" as "the good stuff," you make the
>assumption that everything that is good can be recognized as such by the
>same criteria. I don't think this is true, and that is what makes the cat-
>egorization of SF (by content, because nobody has figured out a better way
>to do it) worth doing. There are certainly SF writers who can be judged
>good writers by "mainstream" criteria, but that's not what I, for one, am
>interested in doing. I don't think that SF writers ought to beg for accep-
>tance from the literary establishment.
>
>>If a work of 'SF' has a lofty purpose then it is a mainstream work as well.
>
>Gee, thanks.
>
>>Science fiction fans often complain because mainstream critics do not
>>acknowledge works of SF. In fact, this is simply not true. There is a
>>substantial body of criticism about Edgar Allen Poe, Mary Shelley, H. G.
>>Wells, William Burroughs and even J. G. Ballard and William Gibson.
>>However, most SF novels do not merit that kind of analysis and
>>consequently do not receive it.
>
>You realize, of course, that only the last two of these writers are genre
>SF writers. Poe, Shelley and Wells wrote before the category of SF existed,
>and Burroughs isn't generally considered an SF writer, though his work can
>be defined as SF.
>
do realize that. That was, of course, part of my point.
>I agree with you that most SF novels don't deserve the kind of anaylsis that
>they get from academic and literary critics. I've read a fair number of
>articles in the scholarly SF journals, and they're generally really bad;
>they're written by people who obviously know nothing about SF, but have
>read a couple of novels and were surprised and delighted to find that they
>aren't trash. They don't understand the traditions of the genre, and they
>assume, as you do, that SF can only be good insofar as it's like mainstream
>literature.
>
It is difficult to respond to this paragraph because it is predicated on the
category mistake which I suggested was the source of all the confusion.
>I've noticed in the past that any long post I make on SF in this newsgroup
>gets pretty much ignored, so I don't know why I bother. Oh well.
>
lthough I think that the term 'SF' embraces a lot of shoddy writing, my
posting was meant to clear up some confusion. I stated my biases up front,
but I think the main point of what I said was intended to advance the
level of discussion regarding science fiction.
Incidentally, I have read a lot of science fiction. Some of it is good.
However, I think it (along with most genre fiction) suffers because its
authors are essentially commercial artists who lack both the ambitions and
the skills of our more noted authors. I have in front of me a book
entitled 'SF: The other side of realism' edited by Thomas Clareson. There
is an article in it by Samuel Delaney (one of the heroes of SF lovers) which
reads (and thinks) like it was written by a pretentious college freshman.
Delaney's novels read the same way. With friends like him, you don't need
any enemies.
Incidentally, the book has an excellent article on Ballard written by Brian
Aldiss.
daniel
... Thanks for your comments.
Janet M. Lafler
>In article <1991Aug9.1...@leland.Stanford.EDU> repn...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Janet M. Lafler) writes:
>>
>>Well, I'm one of the defenders and that was not what I was trying to do.
>>What I maintain is not that "good literature" can include SF, but that
>>the objectives and traditions of SF are distinct and therefore it needs
>>to be judged by different (not "lower" standards).
>>
>This is where I think the problem arises. You are making the category
>mistake I alluded to in my post. Judging literature is not a
>process of matching works to a set of pre-defined standards, but a
>process of analysis and evaluation where the work itself generates its
>standards.
I don't buy this. Maybe it's because I come at literature as an anthropolo-
gist rather than a lit major type, but I see literature as a social product,
not something which exists independently of culture and which creates its
own standards. Do you really mean to say that you have no pre-defined stan-
dards when you read a book, or when you approach any piece of art? That's
impossible. I don't believe it. You may not be aware of these standards, but
you have them.
I'm feeling a strong impulse to quote Bourdieu here, but I don't know what
the term "habitus" would mean to you. Besides, I don't know if I really
understand Bourdieu myself...
What I was trying to say is that the standards that you think are universal
(even if you don't think they apply only to literature which is labelled
as such by the literary establishment) are part of a tradition, and that
works that fall outside that tradition, whether they're from another culture
entirely or from subgenres within this culture, are different. This is not
a category error; I'm trying to point out the hegemony of the *unmarked* cat-
egory of "literature."
Charge!!!!
>>>Let me put this crudely:
>>>'Mainstream literature' is a class of works defined by their loftiness
>>>of purpose. They are the 'high art' of literature.
>>>
>>>'SF' is a class of works defined by their content.
>>
>>Well, that's an interesting point, but it leaves out too much. For one
>>thing, "SF" and "mainstream" (or simply "literature") are not only cate-
>>gories based on coherent distinctions between works, they are publisher's
>>categories, and therefore somewhat arbitrary.
>
> They are not publisher's distinctions. They are not distinctions at all.
>They are independent modes of classification. That means that a work can
>be SF-mainstream, nonSF-mainstream, SF-nonmainstream, nonSF-nonmainstream.
>To contrast them is to enter into the category mistake that causes all the
>trouble.
Well, if I understand what you're saying here, it seems like a pretty useless
application of the term "literature." The problem is that many people equate
"the good stuff" with "the stuff that is not recognizably genre fiction of
any kind" and call them both mainstream literature. If you're not going to
do that, you need to be much more clear about it. You may not believe in
categories, but you have to at least pay attention to the way that people
use them.
>Incidentally, I don't like the term
>'mainstream literature', but it is the term used by SF apologists and
>so I adopted it.
Well, what would you suggest instead? You seem to want to use this word
to denote something that I think it's useless to categorize anyway. Why
have a term for "the good stuff" (or the stuff with lofty purpose, a def-
inition which sticks in my craw, by the way)? Why do we need to create a
term which encompasses what is good, or lofty, or whatever? (Hereinafter,
I'll use the symbol "XXX" for good or "lofty-purposed" literature.)
Your use of the term still makes me think that you believe there's some
category of fiction (as in publisher's or critic's category) which approx-
imates "XXX," even though you seem to be denying this. Do you think there's
some neutral kind of literature which is just plain literature?
>lthough I think that the term 'SF' embraces a lot of shoddy writing, my
>posting was meant to clear up some confusion. I stated my biases up front,
>but I think the main point of what I said was intended to advance the
>level of discussion regarding science fiction.
Well, I think it's only created more confusion, because you didn't make it
clear enough that the way you use the term "mainstream literature" bears no
resemblance to the way most people it. A strange way to try to clear up con-
fusion.
Daniel Read
>In article <1991Aug8.2...@psych.toronto.edu> dan...@psych.toronto.edu (Daniel Read) writes:
>>Let me put this crudely:
>>'Mainstream literature' is a class of works defined by their loftiness
>>of purpose. They are the 'high art' of literature.
>>
>>'SF' is a class of works defined by their content.
>>
>>[Regardless of whether you agree with my definitions ... which I am
>>hardly committed to ... I think you can see my point.]
>
>Your definition of Mainstream literature is fairly cheap in that it
>is designed to specifically hold up your argument.
regret using the term 'Mainstream' literature. I chose that term because
it has wide currency. I prefer just 'literature' or 'literary fiction'.
My argument stands regardless of the terms or the definitions. The thing
I wanted people to focus on was the notion of a category mistake.
I have always been
>under the assumption that Mainstream literature is middle-of-the-road
>literature - the kinds of books most people read.
And you call MY definition of literature cheap?
>
>Can someone please post the publishers' definition of "Mainstream
>Literature" ?
>
Are you having red herring for supper tonight?
daniel
Daniel Read
>In article <1991Aug8.2...@psych.toronto.edu>, dan...@psych.toronto.edu
>(Daniel Read) says:
>
> Daniel gives, at length, the exchange:
>Literary Purist "All SF is crap"
>SF reader "But _this_ is good"
>Literary Purist "Then is isn't SF"
>
you are, I suggest you reread my original article.
This is a 'straw man' claim advanced by science fiction fans. Nobody
outside of snide articles extolling the virtues of SF has ever advanced
it.
daniel read
Daniel Read
>
>
>> Let me put this crudely:
>> 'Mainstream literature' is a class of works defined by their loftiness
>> of purpose. They are the 'high art' of literature.
>
>Fine, as long as you are differentiating between "mainstream literature"
>and the mainstream as a whole. Certainly Robert Ludlum and Danielle Steele
>are not defined by "loftiness of purpose."
>
>the mainstream are in a sense defined by their content. Literature is
>the good stuff (defined by your "loftiness of purpose" or whatever. I think
>there are other ways to define this also).
>
>One problem is that there are a handful of SF writers who haven't received
>this attention but deserve it. Theodore Sturgeon and Gene Wolfe come to
>mind.
>
haven't read Gene Wolfe. I will go and get one of his books today (his
name comes up a lot). I enjoy Theodore Sturgeon, but I don't think he
has more to offer than a good thriller (e.g., Jim Thompson) or mystery
(e.g., Fredric Brown) writer.
>Much of this comes from the lack of good criticism of SF in mainstream
>publications. Much of it comes from SF fans, many of whom, when asked
>for recommendations, recommend the field's good adventure writers (which is
>fine if that's what you're looking for, but is often not what the reader is
>looking for).
That is probably one reason why most SF is dreck -- its written for thosa
people who like those books, and think that they are literature. That's
why most mysteries are dreck, and most westerns, and most horror novels
and romances and ...
>Oh, well, enough of beating this dead horse. On to other things.
>
I don't think the horse is dead yet.
daniel
Janet M. Lafler
Really. Nobody ever? In the history of literary criticism? Are you
sure?
Unfortunately this is not a straw man claim. I've heard Margaret Atwood (whom
I greatly admire) using essentially this line of reasoning (talking about good
literature which uses SF elements, but of course isn't SF because it's good
literature).
Your original article was sufficiently unclear that it could be interpreted
that you had said this yourself.
RM...@psuvm.psu.edu
mave...@mahogany.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) says:
>In article <91221.13...@psuvm.psu.edu>, RM...@psuvm.psu.edu (Bob Grumbine)
>writes:
>|>
>|> On a related note, it is possible that the Purists outright don't know
>|> _how_ to read science fiction. Consider: "The speedometer passed 80, but
>|> the dogs were still closing in." A Purist would either throw the book
>|> away instantly, or possibly start wondering about what was 'actually'
>intended
>|> by the passage. An SF reader sees the line and figures that wherever the
>|> characters are, there are dogs capable of running over 80. (mph, lets say
>|> for specificity). This is then an important clue to the nature of the
>world
>|> the characters are in. The Purist already _knows_ his world; do not
>tamper.
>Several people have privately mailed me about this inadequacy of
>mainstream-lit readers.
> Frankly, I'm puzzled that SF readers think everything else is
>literal
>realism. Or that in apparently realistic work, one doesn't have to use clues n
>in a
>sentence to adjust one's perception of the story. Classic example from a
>realist
>novel: "In the fall the war was always there, but we did not go to it any "
>more.
>[A few words may be mixed up in there, but the sense is right, and the
>ostentatious evasion of surface sentiment.] If there's something special
>about
>the use of SF, it has to lie deeper than this.
Sorry for retaining the whole exchange. I didn't see a way to
trim. The mangling of Vance's comments are because my newsreader
despises anything over 80 characters.
So who said anything about non-SF being literal realism? My example,
80 mph dogs, is something where the SF reader would take the statement
literally. But the non-SF reader would not. (In fact, wouldn't
realize that they _could_.) As an off-hand guess, I'd say that _The
Satanic Verses_ were a lot less realistic than much of SF.
And _of course_ regardless of what fiction you read, you have to
adjust your perceptions to the story. That's how you know it's fiction.
For non-SF versus SF,
the order of adjustment is of a different order. In non-SF, you
may read of a dog chasing a car -- but you have no expectaion or belief
that it could really catch up the driver didn't let it. In SF,
the dog _might_ be able to catch the car (in the story I got this from,
they did). Your remapping of perception is at very fundamental level in
SF. (_Good_ SF)
As to your example. In reading non-SF, the comment you give illustrates
that the speaker is probably very callous or detached. If it were read
as SF, we would infer that the person's _culture_ had a very detached
view to war. Perhaps it is even a spectator sport that is now dying
in popularity. (Such a device has been used in SF.) As non-SF, we
'know' that war is not something that one 'goes to' or not. The comment
can only tell us something about the individual. Different order of
information.
I suppose the excersize for someone who really wanted to argue this in
detail would be to take an SF story and mark out all the world-changing
clues that are prone to being lost on someone without the SF reading
habits. Not me. Any takers?
Bob Grumbine
RM...@psuvm.psu.edu
(Daniel Read) says:
>In article <91221.13...@psuvm.psu.edu> <RM...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>In article <1991Aug8.2...@psych.toronto.edu>,
>dan...@psych.toronto.edu
>>(Daniel Read) says:
>>
>> Daniel gives, at length, the exchange:
>>Literary Purist "All SF is crap"
>>SF reader "But _this_ is good"
>>Literary Purist "Then is isn't SF"
>>
> hope your not attributing the 'literary purist' position to me. If
>you are, I suggest you reread my original article.
Read my article. You gave the argument. I said nothing about
precisely where you stood.
>This is a 'straw man' claim advanced by science fiction fans. Nobody
>outside of snide articles extolling the virtues of SF has ever advanced
>it.
Really? I have been told precisely this by four people I can name off-
hand. There is a large group - of people speaking to me personally -
of people who have given the all SF is crap comment that I haven't
bothered to pursue the issue with. If this is a straw man example, I'd
really love to see what you call a strong example.
The 'all SF is crap' comment was also made, I believe, in an article
in the Phi Beta Kappa magazine. If I had a certain paper I wrote
in high school, I could give you the full citation and quote. (I may
indeed have it. There've been several moves since then.) The paper
was for a writing class. The teacher was one of my examples for the
'It isn't SF then.' exchange. We had to write a research paper.
My subject, basically, was why he should read SF. He did (having made
the comments in ignorance) and liked it. Got an A on the paper too.
Bob Grumbine
Daniel Read
>In article <1991Aug9.2...@psych.toronto.edu> dan...@psych.toronto.edu (Daniel Read) writes:
>>In article <91221.13...@psuvm.psu.edu> <RM...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>In article <1991Aug8.2...@psych.toronto.edu>, dan...@psych.toronto.edu
>>>(Daniel Read) says:
>>>
>>> Daniel gives, at length, the exchange:
>>>Literary Purist "All SF is crap"
>>>SF reader "But _this_ is good"
>>>Literary Purist "Then is isn't SF"
>>>
>> hope your not attributing the 'literary purist' position to me. If
>>you are, I suggest you reread my original article.
>>
>>This is a 'straw man' claim advanced by science fiction fans. Nobody
>>outside of snide articles extolling the virtues of SF has ever advanced
>>it.
>
>Really. Nobody ever? In the history of literary criticism? Are you
>sure?
>
seen or heard the argument it was by a proponent of science fiction
saying 'this is what those guys do'. An example of such usage is given
above.
Can you (or anyone) come up with a case of someone really using this
argument?
daniel read
Daniel Read
>In article <1991Aug9.2...@psych.toronto.edu>, dan...@psych.toronto.edu
>(Daniel Read) says:
>
>>In article <91221.13...@psuvm.psu.edu> <RM...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>Literary Purist "All SF is crap"
>>>SF reader "But _this_ is good"
>>>Literary Purist "Then is isn't SF"
>>>
>
>>outside of snide articles extolling the virtues of SF has ever advanced
>>it.
>
> Really? I have been told precisely this by four people I can name off-
>hand. There is a large group - of people speaking to me personally -
>of people who have given the all SF is crap comment that I haven't
>bothered to pursue the issue with. If this is a straw man example, I'd
>really love to see what you call a strong example.
>
> The 'all SF is crap' comment was also made, I believe, in an article
>in the Phi Beta Kappa magazine. If I had a certain paper I wrote
>in high school, I could give you the full citation and quote. (I may
>indeed have it. There've been several moves since then.) The paper
>was for a writing class. The teacher was one of my examples for the
>'It isn't SF then.' exchange. We had to write a research paper.
>My subject, basically, was why he should read SF. He did (having made
>the comments in ignorance) and liked it. Got an A on the paper too.
>
The straw man that I referred to is not the claim that 'all SF is
crap', but the claim that if it isn't crap then it isn't SF. Of
course many people claim that all SF is without merit, but do they
THEN make the absurd claim that you attribute to them.
I will acknowledge that quality literature that has SF style content
is often considered not to be SF (I gave William Burroughs as the
example par excellence). However, I don't think that somebody would
go to the extreme of 'reclassifying' works because they had
discovered their merits. For example, although Ballard is now
an acceptable middle-highbrow author, he is still considered a
writer of science fiction.
daniel
RM...@psuvm.psu.edu
(Daniel Read) says:
>In article <91221.22...@psuvm.psu.edu> RM...@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>>In article <1991Aug9.2...@psych.toronto.edu>,
>dan...@psych.toronto.edu
>>(Daniel Read) says:
>>
>>>In article <91221.13...@psuvm.psu.edu> <RM...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>The straw man that I referred to is not the claim that 'all SF is
>crap', but the claim that if it isn't crap then it isn't SF. Of
>course many people claim that all SF is without merit, but do they
>THEN make the absurd claim that you attribute to them.
The four people I referred to most certainly did make the absurd
claim that if it was good, it isn't SF. At least you agree that it
is absurd. There is also the example of a certain English lit. teacher.
A friend majored in English literature. In an advanced course, having
nothing whatever to do with SF, the teacher launched into a
completely gratuitous speech on why his students should never read
science fiction. (None of them already had, so there was no counter-
argument.)
To butcher the Bard "Methinks the Purists doth protest too much."
Bob Grumbine
Bryan Solie
>Literature" ?
Whatever sells.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Solie
I owe my allegiance to no organization. I am a citizen of the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Solie
>In article <1991Aug9.2...@psych.toronto.edu> dan...@psych.toronto.edu (Daniel Read) writes:
>>Judging literature is not a
>>process of matching works to a set of pre-defined standards, but a
>>process of analysis and evaluation where the work itself generates its
>>standards.
>
>I don't buy this. Maybe it's because I come at literature as an anthropolo-
>gist rather than a lit major type, but I see literature as a social product,
>not something which exists independently of culture and which creates its
>own standards. Do you really mean to say that you have no pre-defined stan-
>dards when you read a book, or when you approach any piece of art? That's
>impossible. I don't believe it. You may not be aware of these standards, but
>you have them.
I don't buy it either, and while I agree with what Janet says, I think
there's a less abstract level on which he's wrong as well.
There are a host of pre-defined standards for any genre. The key to a good
mystery is "Was it mysterious?" to a thriller is "Was it thrilling?" to a
horror is "Was it horrifying?" etc. While I see that this can
be construed as "the work itself generat[ing] its standards," I don't think the
logic holds. The standard-holder, or evaluator, is the reader, not the
book. Thus the standards come from the reader's idea of what constitutes a
good <insert genre> story.
"Good" literature (not "all" literature, as Daniel seems to suggest) defies
categorization. People like JG Ballard can't honestly be lumped with
Robert Heinlein. Heinlein (used to) write a competent science fiction
story. Ballard's books go a bit further.
Bryan Solie
>However, I don't think that somebody would
>go to the extreme of 'reclassifying' works because they had
>discovered their merits. For example, although Ballard is now
>an acceptable middle-highbrow author, he is still considered a
>writer of science fiction.
Actually, this is exactly what happens in the process of becoming a
classic. No book starts off as a "classic." It starts off as a good story.
If people (or more often, publishers) still think it's a good story 50
years later, it's a classic.
Warning: That description is not supposed to be definitive. I'm just
pointing out that a "classic" isn't a "classic" when it's published. It's
something else.
The books that you see quarter-page ads for in the NYTimes Book Review are
genre literature with high aspirations.
William George Frank
[ Nuked a lot of stuff....]
>
> Sorry for retaining the whole exchange. I didn't see a way to
> trim. The mangling of Vance's comments are because my newsreader
> despises anything over 80 characters.
Don't worry, I got rid of it.
> So who said anything about non-SF being literal realism? My example,
> 80 mph dogs, is something where the SF reader would take the statement
> literally. But the non-SF reader would not. (In fact, wouldn't
> realize that they _could_.) As an off-hand guess, I'd say that _The
> Satanic Verses_ were a lot less realistic than much of SF.
Believe it or not, non-SF sometimes contains statements that are used
only for informational purposes too. I don't think that the non-SF
reader couldn't read a sentence in a literal way. Otherwise, such a
person could never read a newspaper.
> And _of course_ regardless of what fiction you read, you have to
> adjust your perceptions to the story. That's how you know it's fiction.
> For non-SF versus SF,
> the order of adjustment is of a different order. In non-SF, you
> may read of a dog chasing a car -- but you have no expectaion or belief
> that it could really catch up the driver didn't let it. In SF,
> the dog _might_ be able to catch the car (in the story I got this from,
> they did). Your remapping of perception is at very fundamental level in
> SF. (_Good_ SF)
Fo my opinion of what good SF is see below. If it is what you say, I
can go about 50 pages into the book before I give up. (Of course, this
is all IMHO.)
> As to your example. In reading non-SF, the comment you give illustrates
> that the speaker is probably very callous or detached. If it were read
> as SF, we would infer that the person's _culture_ had a very detached
> view to war. Perhaps it is even a spectator sport that is now dying
> in popularity. (Such a device has been used in SF.) As non-SF, we
> 'know' that war is not something that one 'goes to' or not. The comment
> can only tell us something about the individual. Different order of
> information.
The best SF, IMHO does both; it remaps perceptions on both orders.
You see things on a different exterior, and you see the reactions of
the characters to this. You percive how the characters deal with
their "world" on a personal level. You understand their thoughts,
their feelings. This is what good literature should do IMHO, and I
expect good SF to do it also.
> I suppose the excersize for someone who really wanted to argue this in
> detail would be to take an SF story and mark out all the world-changing
> clues that are prone to being lost on someone without the SF reading
> habits. Not me. Any takers?
I don't think that those clues would be lost on a non-SF reader, but
the non-SF reader is less interested in them and more interested in
the characters than the SF reader. Of course, since I was at one time
a SF reader, I can't tell.
> Bob Grumbine
-William
"It was not a fine river at all, but it was the only one we had and so
we boasted about it --- how dangerous it was in a wet winter and how
dry in a dry summer. You can boast about anything if it's all you
have. Maybe the less you have, the more you are required to boast."
-John Steinbeck
_East of Eden_
Philip Freeman (Dept)
(dan...@psych.toronto.edu suggests in a previous posting that 'SF' and
'mainstream literature' are catagories with independent criteria of
selection and are not mutually exclusive as some suggest. Someone else
(Janet??) responds:
J>>Fine, as long as you are differentiating between "mainstream literature"
J>>and the mainstream as a whole.
J>>(...)
J>>Why not, then, drop the "mainstream" from your category names. Both SF and
J>>the mainstream are in a sense defined by their content. Literature is
J>>the good stuff (defined by your "loftiness of purpose" or whatever. I think
J>>there are other ways to define this also).
J>>
>GOOD IDEA. I regret using the term 'mainstream'.
mainstream works can be trashy too. So it is at least POSSIBLE for the
criteria of 'SF' and 'lit' to be independent. The question then is how
independent are they in theory, in practice, and in perception. These
are separate questions. One could argue that 'SF' is less literary than
the mainstream on any of these grounds, and I have in fact seen most
variants of such arguments made. I take Daniel to be arguing that SF is
less literary than the mainstream in practice (though not nescessarily
in theory) and is therefore percieved as such, while Janet argues that
SF is only less literary in perception, largely because the perceptions
of those coming from the 'mainstream' are coloured by/or fail to be
coloured by a particular set of cultural expectations.
The point has also been made that the publishers classification of
books affects perception by affecting the proportion of literary work
which is 1)published and 2)if publihed published in genre. (I'm sorry
but I don't recall whose point this was...) Although Daniel originally
rejects this distinction he later incorporates it into his analysis:
>That is probably one reason why most SF is dreck -- its written for thosa
>people who like those books, and think that they are literature. That's
>why most mysteries are dreck, and most westerns, and most horror novels
>and romances and ...
Now I can certainly attest to the effect of the publishing filter on
the proportion of literary SF. A good friend of mine is very interested
in writing literary SF, and has written several novels which I, biassed
though I am, believe to be very good indeed. He is yet to be published,
however, since his agent keeps recieving letters that read (quoting from
memory): "This is an brilliant novel... Unfortunately we don't know
how to market it. Please send us his next book though."
The sad fact is that the publishers are unwilling to risk publishing
a book which is too literary in an SF line or a book with SF elements in
a literary line. He did have a deal with Penguin Books, but they just
folded their SF line here due to the recession. Anyway, there is no
doubt in my mind that the current publishing situation causes a feedback
between the perception of SF as non-literary and the nature of SF in
practice. Even those lines which attempt to be more literate tend to
focus more on flash than on the work as a whole. Their existance may
indicate that this is slowly changing. Perhaps those courses on SF as
literature are not as useless as all that...
Now, how baddly have I misrepresented the positions of the original
debaters? How do you feel about the influence of such feedback effects,
and do you feel that it can or should influence the debate? Finally, if
literary SF is desirable (my bias) and if the low proportion of literary
SF is due, even in part, to its perception as non-literary than it seems
desirable to try to change that perception. Do those on the 'SF is
drek' side feel similarly?
...... Philip Freeman (fre...@physics.ubc.ca)
A sage who had filled his glass at the fountain of truth \ /
Said in a statement that later became canonical \ /
To his disciples, patterns of eager youth: ||
'I have seen truth itself; and it is conical!' -- Piet Hein _||_
Richard Caley
r> It does seem interesting that the Purists are awfully vehement about a
r> body of writing that, by their own definition, they've never read. Not,
r> of course, that reading it would change their minds. Has anyone ever
r> read a book with the conviction that it was going to be badly written and
r> then had their mind changed by the book? Unlikely.
I read Gibson and Stirling, `The Difference Engine' yesterday with
exactly this conviction. Everything of Stirling's I have read lead me
to believe that Gibson wouldn't be able to keep the thing together. I
was wrong, its a good read, a bit derivative and the supposed
mystery is obvious from the minute it arives on scene, but a good
sunday afternoon.
Now, the thing is that most people would not read a book they expected
to be badly written. To judge from the anecdotes people have presented
here, SF readers spend half their life brow beating non-Sf readers
into reading their favorite author and then being suprised that they
get a negative reaction. Reading a book involuntary is about the best
way to ensure you will dislike it. I don't think I have met anyone
whose likes and dislikes weren't influenced (negatively) by what they
were forced to read in school.
r> On a related note, it is possible that the Purists outright don't
r> know _how_ to read science fiction. [...] The Purist already
r> _knows_ his world; do not tamper.
This is certainly too simplistic. One can't read _any_ without being
prepared to do this kind of world building, even if it is only to
place a house on a moore and label it Wutherring Heights.
There is a way in which the world building seems to differ. In a MF
(to borrow from Dan'l) text the world is built to support the
characters and their interaction to form the plot. In an SF text, the
world is built as an integral part of the message, one might say,
metaphorically, it is a character in its own right. I'm not sure that
is a good way of putting it, maybe someone can help me out.
I think that difference is one of the reasons that readers from one
camp tend to get irritated with books from the other.
An SF reader reading a MF text will be looking for more in the
background than is there, and probably missing important things about
the characters in doing so. Why is Wutherring Heights on a moore? To a
MF reader it is on a moore because that helps the atmosphere and
supports the interactions. The SF reader looks for hints that the
moore is doing something (shades of Solaris) or that the moore's
existance is going to turn out to be linked to Catherine or ... of
course in doing so they are missing the point.
To go the other way an MF reader reading an SF text is likely to be
distracted by what seems like pointless exploration of the background,
often pointless technophillia since the background will often be high
tech in nature. Why should we be interested in the artificial arm of
the bartender? The MF reader may expect that having been presented the
bartender may turn up again, or may be important in the workings of
the plot. In fact the arm and its implications for the world that
created it and the history that made it necessary may be more
important.
Now I am out on a limb I will backtrack a little. The above are
somewhat platonic. There are no pure SF of MF texts, no pure readers,
especially now that SF has become pervasive in our culture. Even the
most case hardened SF fan will have read some MF, if only at school.
The strongest anti-SF bigot has probably seen Star Wars or an SF
inspired TV advertisement. Authors try to cross over, generally not
very successfully. More interestingly authors take ideas from both
sides (and anything else that's handy) and weave them together.
--
r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk Brick Bronson? What kind of name is that?
It's a pulp name.
- Gene Wolf, `The Last Thrilling Wonder Story'
Janet M. Lafler
>In article <91221.13...@psuvm.psu.edu>, RM...@psuvm.psu.edu (Bob Grumbine) writes:
>|>
>|> On a related note, it is possible that the Purists outright don't know
>|> _how_ to read science fiction. Consider: "The speedometer passed 80, but
>|> the dogs were still closing in." A Purist would either throw the book
>|> away instantly, or possibly start wondering about what was 'actually' intended
>|> by the passage.
>Several people have privately mailed me about this inadequacy of mainstream-lit
>readers. Frankly, I'm puzzled that SF readers think everything else is literal
>realism. Or that in apparently realistic work, one doesn't have to use clues in a
>sentence to adjust one's perception of the story.
In an email exchange with Vance I produced the following, which he suggested
I post. Since part of it bears on the above, I'm posting it (slightly edited)
as a follow-up.
> I for one would appreciate it very much of you could go into some
> detail about what these critics (whom I've never read) are missing -- and
> what they're assuming because of their background in the canon.
Well, there's a range of things. The first problem is that of academics who
display an abysmal ignorance of the history of the field; they assume that
some theme or technique or even subgenre is new just because they've never
seen it before; or they haven't heard of (not to mention read) important books
in the field, and yet they presume to publish. This ignorance of the field
leads them to do things like compare books or authors that aren't seen as re-
motely comparable by readers, writers or critics in the field; there's little
recognition of the differences between what people in the field see as trash
or "popcorn" and what has artistic pretentions. Thus you'll get articles with
titles like "Dominance and Freedom in the Works of Ursula K. Le Guin and Piers
Anthony," etc.
Then there's some random idiocy, like Freudian interpretations of "Back to
the Future," which you wonder why anyone bothered to do. (I could do a
Freudian interpretation of "Back to the Future" with one hand tied behind
my back, and I haven't even seen the movie....) Of course, this kind
of thing crops up in academia all the time, and there's not much you can do
about it.
Then there are more subtle things. I'm not sure how well I can express this,
but it's been brought up by several people and you profess to have trouble
with the idea, so I'll give it my best shot. I think there's a basic differ-
ence in the literalness of SF as opposed to "mainstream" literature (and I
include within "mainstream" most fiction by mainstream writers which incor-
porates SF or fantasy elements.) There's a tendency by readers of mainstream
lit. to read SF as either prescriptive (e.g. utopian) or as allegory. Of
course, many SF works are in part allegorical, and many have utopian or cau-
tionary elemnts, but I think there's a tendency to see it as no more than a
simple reflection of reality, which misses the some of the most interesting
aspects of SF. As an example, in an SF book in which a lot of the work of
the society is done by robots, the mainstream reader might automatically
understand the robots to represent the working classes. Now, this is probably
part of what's going on (in some SF novels it may be all that's going on), but
in a good SF novel that's probably not all that's happening. In a good SF
novel, the author would be trying to represent the robots as a distinct new
creation, whose existence as a workforce would be seriously and subtlely dif-
ferent from that of a working class human workforce. The robots would be
literally robots. Mainstream readers (and critics, in my experience) are
likely to miss out on this, and be content with simply interpreting everything
that the robots do as directly reflecting something about the human working
classes in this world. And I think that generally, when mainstream writers
use SF elements, they're not interested in them on the nuts-and-bolts level;
they're interested in robots and rocketships and aliens and technological
artifacts, or even in made-up societies, as symbolic tools. Thus mainstream
novels with SF elements (such as _The Handmaid's Tale_) are kind of frustra-
ting for SF readers because they're thin; the SF elements are only window-
dressing. (Of course, there are plenty of SF novels that are also thin and
short on imagination, but that's another subject.) I like to use _The Hand-
maid's Tale_ as an example because Atwood is a writer whose work I know well
and admire greatly. I've read all of her published novels, and _The Hand-
maid's Tale_ is, in my opinion, much weaker than her other work, both as a
literary novel and as "science fiction." Of course, there's no clear line
delineating the distinction between SF writers and mainstream writers who use
SF elements. Philip Dick, for instance, was not really a nuts and bolts SF
writer. (By "nuts and bolts" I don't mean "hard" SF only. Ursula Le Guin
is a nuts and bolts writer of "soft" SF, or she can be.)
Of course, imagination and epistimological constraints being what they are,
everything in an SF novel ultimately does end up being traceable to this world,
but for SF readers, it's the attempt to reach something "other" that's more
important. It's the attempt to stretch boundaries. That's why SF readers
and writers get so annoyed when mainstream critics see SF as allegorical or
utopian; it diminshes the purpose of SF to that of simply reflecting reality.
The whole question of realism and symbolism and literalness is very complex,
because SF is both more and less literal than mainstream literature. Elements
which would be symbolic in mainstream lit. are literal in SF, so it's more
literal; but SF is detached from reality in a way that mainstream lit. is not,
so it's less literal.
Anyway, that's the best I can do. I hope it's helpful.
BTW, if you're looking for good SF criticism, it can be kind of hard to come
by, and you have to wade through a lot of dross, but there's some interesting
stuff to be found in the pages of Science Fiction Eye and the New York Review
of Science Fiction, as well as in some fanzines. Unfortunately the content of
SF Eye reflects a lot of stupid in-fighting and turf wars, but it also in-
cludes some interesting reviews, interviews and editorials. You could also
try Interzone, which is a British SF magazine.
Janet M. Lafler
>The straw man that I referred to is not the claim that 'all SF is
>crap', but the claim that if it isn't crap then it isn't SF. Of
>course many people claim that all SF is without merit, but do they
>THEN make the absurd claim that you attribute to them.
Well, as many of us have testified, this happens *often* in conversation.
>I will acknowledge that quality literature that has SF style content
>is often considered not to be SF (I gave William Burroughs as the
>example par excellence). However, I don't think that somebody would
>go to the extreme of 'reclassifying' works because they had
>discovered their merits. For example, although Ballard is now
>an acceptable middle-highbrow author, he is still considered a
>writer of science fiction.
Well, there are a few writers who have made the leap from SF to being
accepted as literary writers. There are more in Britain than the US,
though I'm not sure why. (Ballard's more recent novels are not packaged
or marketed as SF in the US. I don't know about Canada.) What about
Vonnegut? Once he had been accepted as a literary writer, his work was no
longer considered SF, though it certainly had been before. He no longer
calls himself an SF writer, though his work still contains SF elements;
he's reclassified himself.
Ursula Le Guin has had stories published in literary "Best Short Stories
of the Year" anthologies, and there's never any acknowledgement either
that she's a science fiction writer or that the story is science fiction
(except in one case, where she wrote her own bio and brought up the issue
of genre herself). This case is a little more slippery, since Le Guin
herself happily acknowledges that some of what she writes is SF and fantasy.
Janet M. Lafler
>"Good" literature (not "all" literature, as Daniel seems to suggest) defies
>categorization. People like JG Ballard can't honestly be lumped with
>Robert Heinlein. Heinlein (used to) write a competent science fiction
>story. Ballard's books go a bit further.
I agree with what you're saying here, but not exactly with what I think
you mean by it.
I'm bothered by Daniel's attempt to create a category of literary "high art,"
which includes literature (of any genre) which is lofty of purpose. To me,
this is so abstract a definition that it's almost useless. Certainly there
is literature which defies categorization, or fits into more than one category
or transcends its category, but there is no literature which has no literary
context. So what's the point of creating a category to put all the good stuff
in? Why bother? That's not what the Mainstream/SF debate is about. Daniel is
trying to dissolve the problem by saying that SF can be sometimes be good lit-
erature (by some pure standard), but the question that has been under debate
remains the same: does realistic fiction have any general claim to superior-
ity over SF? I don't think so, but then you already know my opinion. What
really bothers me about Daniel's position is that he seems to want to gloss
over the fact that realistic fiction is a *type* of literature, not a neutral
form.
Matt Austern
> I enjoy Theodore Sturgeon, but I don't think he has more to offer
> than a good thriller (e.g., Jim Thompson) or mystery (e.g., Fredric
> Brown) writer.
Well, of course; but why do you say this as if it's a put-down? Are
we about to get into another "genre war," this time about mystery
novels can be as good as Real Literature?
A good writer of detective stories (Raymond Chandler, for example) can
be very good indeed. The prose in _The Big Sleep_ is extremely
beautiful.
--
Matt Austern ma...@physics.berkeley.edu Lots of things worth saying
(415) 644-2618 aus...@lbl.bitnet can only be said loosely.
news
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Keywords:
From: he...@wolf.unet.com (Heidi Wolf)
Path: wolf!heidi
For an extensive discussion of science fiction as a genre and as
literature (its failings and strengths), try THE LANGUAGE OF THE NIGHT
by Ursula K. LeGuin. It was originally published in hardback about
10 years ago, but has since been re-issued in paperback.
Heidi Wolf
Jeff Dalton
>I agree with you that most SF novels don't deserve the kind of anaylsis that
>they get from academic and literary critics. I've read a fair number of
>articles in the scholarly SF journals, and they're generally really bad;
>they're written by people who obviously know nothing about SF, but have
>read a couple of novels and were surprised and delighted to find that they
>aren't trash. They don't understand the traditions of the genre, and they
>assume, as you do, that SF can only be good insofar as it's like mainstream
>literature.
"Scholarly SF journals?" Which are these? Have you ever seen the
British _Foundation_ (The Review of Science Fiction)? It tends to
contain things like:
Reviews by Brigg, Clute, Disch, Feeley, Gaimon, Gorton,
Jones, Pollack, and Stableford
of books by MAragret Atwood, William Gibson, MacDonald Harris,
Robert A. Heinlein, Ursula Le Guin, LArry Niven & Jerry Pournelle,
Frederick Turner, Nancy Willard and others
plus articles. Whatever it's flaws, it's at least not written by
people who know nothing.
But speaking of such... The Independent newspaper over here went
wild over _Clark County, Space_ as offering some kind of insight
into American and the future and ... or something. So I thoughy,
why not, sounds interesting, and read it. I wasn't that impressed.
> There are certainly SF writers who can be judged
>good writers by "mainstream" criteria, but that's not what I, for one, am
>interested in doing. I don't think that SF writers ought to beg for accep-
>tance from the literary establishment.
But aren't posters in Sf-Lovers always saying how good novels have to
win on plot and characterization while, at the same time, fighting
over whether ideas (Niven?) or style (Gibson) are more important?
Indeed, it sometimes seems the main difference about SF readers is
that they're willing to forgive bad characterization if the plot
or ideas are exciting enough.
-- jd
Jeff Dalton
>(Daniel Read) says:
>
> Daniel gives, at length, the exchange:
>SF reader "But _this_ is good"
>Literary Purist "Then is isn't SF"
>
>exchange at a cocktail party:
>Literary Purist "90% of SF is crap"
>Theodore Sturgeon "90% of _everything_ is crap"
Which is, of course, false. Do you think that, for example, 90% of
the books you think are good are crap?
Some bookstores actually have a separate "literature" section. It's
entirely possible that there's a higher percentage of good books there
then in the SF section, even if it's only 11% rather than 10.
People who dislike SF often know how to find the good books in other
categories. For SF they haven't a clue. So they tend to get the
crap. But the 90% of everything argument may well seem contradicted
by their own experience.
Alayne McGregor
>
>Some bookstores actually have a separate "literature" section. It's
>entirely possible that there's a higher percentage of good books there
>then in the SF section, even if it's only 11% rather than 10.
A few days ago, I found all of Ian Banks' novels (including the clearly SF
ones like Consider Phlebas) in the literature section of the local Coles'
bookstore. There was nothing by him in the SF section of that store.
I think the distinction was made on the basis of the publisher's line it
was part of -- a generally more literary collection.
Alayne McGregor
ala...@gandalf.ca
Paul Moloney
>But speaking of such... The Independent newspaper over here went
>wild over _Clark County, Space_ as offering some kind of insight
>into American and the future and ... or something. So I thoughy,
>why not, sounds interesting, and read it. I wasn't that impressed.
Hmm. John Doyle of the Irish Times called Neuromancer a 'searing
indictment of Japanese business practises'. Makes you wonder did he get
past the publisher's blurb.
P.
--
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the rem
james Trinity College, Dublin mind." PMOLONEY%VAX1....@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Janet M. Lafler
>>I agree with you that most SF novels don't deserve the kind of anaylsis that
>>they get from academic and literary critics. I've read a fair number of
>>articles in the scholarly SF journals, and they're generally really bad;
>>they're written by people who obviously know nothing about SF, but have
>>read a couple of novels and were surprised and delighted to find that they
>>aren't trash. They don't understand the traditions of the genre, and they
>>assume, as you do, that SF can only be good insofar as it's like mainstream
>>literature.
>
>"Scholarly SF journals?" Which are these? Have you ever seen the
>British _Foundation_ (The Review of Science Fiction)? It tends to
>contain things like:
>
> Reviews by Brigg, Clute, Disch, Feeley, Gaimon, Gorton,
> Jones, Pollack, and Stableford
> of books by MAragret Atwood, William Gibson, MacDonald Harris,
> Robert A. Heinlein, Ursula Le Guin, LArry Niven & Jerry Pournelle,
> Frederick Turner, Nancy Willard and others
>
>plus articles. Whatever it's flaws, it's at least not written by
>people who know nothing.
I'm not surprised that a British journal would be better than the American
ones I've seen; from what I've observed, there's less of a ghettoization
of SF in England than there is here.
I was thinking of SF Studies, and a number of collections of articles.
There are good articles to be found even in these, but you have to sort
through a lot of dross to find them.
>> There are certainly SF writers who can be judged
>>good writers by "mainstream" criteria, but that's not what I, for one, am
>>interested in doing. I don't think that SF writers ought to beg for accep-
>>tance from the literary establishment.
>
>But aren't posters in Sf-Lovers always saying how good novels have to
>win on plot and characterization while, at the same time, fighting
>over whether ideas (Niven?) or style (Gibson) are more important?
>Indeed, it sometimes seems the main difference about SF readers is
>that they're willing to forgive bad characterization if the plot
>or ideas are exciting enough.
There's a lot of difference of opinion, of course. People read SF for
different reasons, and with different goals in mind; and of course it's
a pretty diverse genre, with lots of subgenres. Some readers read only
within those subgenres. Thus anything that anyone (including me) says
about SF in general ought to be taken with a giant humongous cosmic-sized
grain of Kosher salt.
But yeah, a lot of SF readers do tend to read for ideas and plot, rather
than characterization or beauty of prose. That doesn't mean that such an
approach can't be profound, though; but it's a profundity of ideas (at it's
best).
I don't read that way, myself, though, and I'm kind of mystified by it.
Oh well.