Is it possible that part of the problem is that Irving (et al.) doesn’t exist within a genre? It seems that often sci-fi/fantasy threads don’t stick to the original topic, and quickly branch out into, “But Ariel Froomhoffer worked this concept much better in ‘All My Tears Like Crystaline Silicon,’ in issue #55 of Sci Fi Pulparama.” Mainstream/classic works must stand on their own because they aren’t part of an incestuous little genre.
In a similar vein, fantasy and sci-fi fiction has more of a tendency to penetrate various media. To choose a particularly egregious example, any discussion of Star Trek can easily span the TV series, the movies, board games, computer games, card games, and role-playing games. There’s just more territory to be covered–and people have more opportunities to be exposed to the work than they do if an author’s work is only available in novels and maybe a non-blockbuster movie or two.
Then there’s the definite bias that people who are into science and technology tend to be sci-fi/fantasay fans (or at least more so than the general population) and they’re the ones who are into the internet, and would also tend to be attracted to a site like the Straight Dope.
And, sigh, one cannot deny the tendency of sci-fi/fantasy fans to happily and vehemently rehash the same pointless issues over and over. Could a Star Destroy take the Enterprise? Gawd, who cares? But those threads pop up over and over, and maybe shoulder aside more productive discussions.
Speaking as Part of the Problem, I still heartily encourage you to keep starting them highbrow threads. I do read them, and I learn something from time to time. I’m often intimidated out of posting, though, because you’ll be discussing something I read once, a few years ago, and I’m afraid that if I just post my generic opinion about what I dimly recall from it, I’ll just look shallow and won’t be contributing much to the conversation.
Not a “siege mentality,” but I was just feeling sad that there’s nothing I can talk about today. Talking about books is one of my favorite things to do, the boards are a great way to do it and I can’t do it IRL as often as I want.
I think there are a couple of common problems with threads about books.
First, if I haven’t read a book recently, I generally am unable to quote or paraphrase specific bits.
Second, there will be a limited number of people who have read, remember and thought enough about a single book to want to participate in a thread about it.
Third, there’s just not that much I can add to a thread about Heinlein, for instance, when there are several people in the thread who have read and are enthusiastic about every word he ever wrote. For me to participate in “The Moon in a Harsh Mistress Thread,” I’d have to go find my copy of the book, refresh my memory about it and then say that I thought it was pretty good. I just haven’t read it recently enough to contribute more, and it’s not a book that made enough of an impression for me to read it multiple times. The books that I have read multiple times don’t generate much discussion, and that does make me sad because I love to talk about them–but the reasons they don’t generate much discusssion are, I think, the reasons listed above–it’s the same for every book out there, some just more so than others.
Here are a couple of suggestions:
It may be easier to generate discussion if a thread discusses an author, not just a single book. If Nacho4Sara does a Willa Cather thread (please do!), for instance, I could discuss “My Antonia” and her views of the west even though I’ve never read “O Pioneers.” Some of Cather’s short stories and essays are available on line and could be linked for those who want to refresh or get a taste of her work.
Sometimes a thematic discussion would be nice. Which authors have best written about courage? Which authors have used rabbits in key roles? A broader net gives more people a chance to chime in. “Which Russian author is your favorite” might work better than a thread on Tolstoy for me–I’ll be damned if I can remember the names of the 30,000 characters in “War and Peace,” but I would like to talk about why I like Dostoyevsky better than Tolstoy.
Discussions of poetry and short stories seem to work fairly well because they can be linked and quickly read, getting everyone up to speed at the same time.
If a sceince fiction or fantasy book refers to an earlier work or explores a universal theme (Imperial Rome as addressed in Asimov’s “Foundation”, for instance) and a thread mentions this, I might be able to contribute on those scores.
There–that’s my 300th–spent tellin’ everyone what they should do instead of just workin’ on getting it right myself. (And, as for Milton, see sig.) (And on preview, Podkayne’s right too.)
I don’t hate sci-fi, fantasy, etc. I’ve never read those genres or played role games. I’ve never, never seen an episode of Star Trek (original or other spin-offs). I simply have no interest. I cannot grasp the concept of a world that isn’t remotely like the one live in. But I guess that’s why it called fantasy.
Sorry, I’m still burned out on Pope from my Dueling Quotes with danielinthewolvesden way back when. Try countering Bible passages with quotes from “Essay on Man” sometime–it’s quite a challenge.
Having posted that, I feel that I should point out that I’m a fan of SF, fantasy, RPGs, and computer games in addition to reading the stuff all you oddballs ( ) seem to prefer. I’m not going to enter into a defense of the genres here, since that’s not what this thread is about, but I enjoy RPGs enough that I spend a great deal of time as propmaster, player, and writer for a live-action group. Yes, it is possible for RPGs to be played outside, by non-couch potato type people. Add a new group to your list of RPGer types: physically active improvisational actors.
Let me first say that Podkayne wrote the kind of response that I wish I were eloquent enough to express.
I can understand the frustration of non-sci-fi/fantasy fans. Listening to a table full of Star Trek fanboys yammer about the latest doodad brought out in this week’s episode of ST:TNG isn’t exactly my idea of a good time. But then again, my friends and I can have a two-hour blow-by-blow discussion of this weekend’s D&D session, so I can see where they’re coming from.
A lot of the issues brought out in this thread exist in most other fiction genres. Shallow characters? Concentration on genre-specific items (matter transporters, hard science, care and feeding of horses, the construction of 14th century lace bodices) to the exclusion of characters? Lack of character development? Pulpy writing? These things all exist in other fictional genres. I will cheerfully admit that they are more prevalent in sci-fi/fantasy (at least in my opinion – I could be wrong), but those flaws exist in crime fiction, westerns, romance novels, even (dare I say) classic literature.
I’m not bashing literature, either – I’m as much a John Irving fan as Nacho4Sara. But what I’m saying is that there are classic sci-fi and fantasy novels that are a shining example of classic literature. Lord of the Rings, which I’m re-reading now, is wonderfully written and has some of the richest back-story I’ve ever seen. Anything by Michael Moorcock, especially his Elric and Corum series, are also baroque and gorgeously written. Heinlein is a master of the sci-fi genre and is very talented at expressing character depth as well as holding forth advanced scientific ideas (without totally losing the reader).
To be fair, there are lots of examples of bad sci-fi and fantasy as well. Suffering through Jordan or Terry Goodkind almost made ME give up fantasy.
So there are science-fiction and fantasy examples of literature that would, IMHO, rival something put together by Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy or Dickens. That being said, if someone’s just not a ‘fantasy fan’, and the idea of ogres, trolls or Skaven just turns them off, then that’s a valid opinion as well – and to each their own. I just hate seeing a genre get a bad name in general because someone made the mistake of reading Robert Jordan’s latest 900-page piece of dreck and generalized that disgust to include the entire genre.
I absolutely despise Fantasy although that might be because I used to date an ‘Armchair Prince of Darkness’ who read anything that had a woman with an iron clad bikini on the cover.
(Some people think I’m bitter but I don’t think so, no - not at all.)
Comparing John Irving to Star Trek to show that SF is crap is like comparing A Rose for Ecclesiastes to Bridges of Madison County to show that all mainstream literature is crap.
Just want to echo Zanshin that it’s not fair to compare the entire science-fiction-fantasy genre to classic mainstream literature. To paraphrase Theodore Sturgeon, 90% of science ficiton is crap–because 90% of everything is crap. SF is a young, small genre. Maybe there are 50 classic mainstream books for every SF book that’s considered a classic . . . but, in any given time period, for every gadgety sci-fi novel with shallow characters and corny themes, there are 50 mainstream books are published that are so trite and pointless that they, too, are forgotten by history. Okay, maybe the ratio of SF to lit is 1:50 but the ratio of classics is 1:100 or whatever, but you get my drift–there is great science fiction and fantasy literature out there worth discussing, even if we spend a little too much time aruging who’d win in a barfight, a Klingon or a Wookie.
gex gex, I might argue that Brave New World shouln’t be considered genre science fiction, because it arose from a tradition of political satire, not from the tradition of science fiction–and maybe that’s your point. That might be another thread–and one I’ve been mulling over starting for a while.
Okay, so, I don’t want contribute to hijacking this thread into a pro-vs-con debate, I guess, but another word of encouragement to the non-sci-fi-fantasy fans to keep up the good literature threads. I shall endeavour to support them in the future.
I’ve come to the conclusion that a large part of fiction that I really enjoy reading comes down to character studies.
I have some basic knowledge about physics and astronomy (not a expert by any means, but I know a tad and I find them both interesting) so it isn’t that I’m just “lost” once it gets into the realm of Sci-Fi, but it’s just not my cup of tea whgen it comes to enjoyment reading. I have things I want to read for leisure, and things I want to read for knowledge. They rarely cross paths. Well, that may not be entirely true, but for the most part it probably is.
I prefer Steinbeck to Heinlien (sp?), The Sopranos to Deep Space Nine, and sitting down with some beer and playing Outburst, Taboo, or Balderdash over Vampire, the Masquerade.
Having said all that, I don’t feel at all put out by the lot of threads here. It’s the same with everything here…If I’m not interested, I’ll pass it by. No biggie.
And ditto what Tommy the Cat said about RPGs and Comic Book Guy.
Nausicaa, I am at something of a loss to understand your feelings, given that your handle is taken either from an inherently “fantastic” anime or from Homer’s Odyssey.
It is one thing to dislike sword & sorcery pulp, but to extend it to the entire genre on the account of a lame ex-boyfriend doesn’t seem fair.
I don’t see Fenris joining in here, but a while ago, he started this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=74792
That has some very good “classic” science fiction broken down by time frame. Take a try at some of those…keeping in mind that any work of fiction requires at least a little suspension of belief. Also, if you read something from the early 19th century, cut them some slack for writing about ideas that are ludicrouse now.
I love well-written SF&F, but as other posters have noted, many authors focus on the “gee-whiz!” magic or technology aspect at the expense of character development. It also seems that many authors rely heavily on the same setting/tropes. Oh, another novel about a young man/woman in a faux-medieval world who uses powers he or she didn’t know they had to Save The Day? Yawn. Of course, I have the same problem with a lot of mainstream fiction. A woman overcomes adversity/abusive men/past trauma through a meaningful process of self-discovery? Bor-ring.
For those of you who would be willing to give sci-fi and fantasy another try, let me recommend Le Guin’s “Always Coming Home.” It’s a fascinating read about a culture set in the Pacific Northwest in the far distant future. No ray guns, I promise! Caroline Stevermer is also another good bet. Her two books “A College of Magics” and “When the King Comes Home” are beautifully written, richly detailed, and set in a world only ever so slightly different from our own.
I am sure all you science fiction fans have heard of Sturgeons Law. For those who haven’t, legend has it that Theodore Sturgeon was once discussing why science fiction was so poorly regarded. Someone suggested that it was because 90% of it was crap. To which Sturgeon replied, “90% of EVERYTHING is crap.”
Personally, I think Sturgeon was being a little generous… or maybe the crap percentage has just been on the rise since then. In any case, I would like to present what should be obvious (only I’ve never heard anyone say it before so it must not be that obvious): the Inverse Sturgeon Law, which states that 10% of everything is good. And the obvious corollary to that, which is: Genre is irrelevant!
Of course, were Mr. Sturgeon alive today, I would point out to him that sci-fi’s problem might be that the crap tends to get more (or at least as much) attention than the good stuff. This is true for other marginalized art forms as well. Comics for instance. And every medium/genre has its group of fans who seem unable to discern crap from non-crap. That includes literary fiction too.
The more closely something clings to genre, the less interest I usually have in it.
I didn’t mean to make this a classics v. sci-fi thread. Sorry if I hijacked it a little.
I’m just saying, I’ve read Heinlein, LeGuin, and L’Engle, as well as an obscenely painful number of books by some sci-fi guy whose name I always forget. And I loved L’Engle when I was a little girl. I adore The Chronicles of Narnia. I haven’t read Tolkien since 7th grade, but I liked it when I read it (I have to admit, it was a bit too much for a 12 year old).
I just like novels about the human condition more. I’m mesmerized by the late nineteenth century novels in which women offed themselves after experiancing a sexual or spiritual rebirth (Madame Bovary, Anna Karenina, and The Awakening are the best, but there are many more). I’m even thinking of doing my Honors English Senior project on it. That sort of thing intrigues me. And when I want to travel to a different world, there’s always Austen or Swift or Zora Neale Hurston or Gloria Naylor.
I don’t mean to demean Sci-fi. If you love it, more power to you. It’s just not my cup of tea.
I’ll definitely get started on thinking up some good classic lit threads. I’m taking some great lit classes this semester, so I have a lot of ideas.
Perhaps another part of the problem is that we SF/fantasy fans are so obsessive. If a see a thread about, say, Tom Sawyer, or Hamlet, I’ll probably read it, but I won’t post much. If I do, it’ll be “Didn’t he say something sort of vaguely about that somewhere in the beginning of the book? I kind of remember that”. If, on the other hand, I see a thread about Lord of the Rings, I’ll get out my copy of the book, look up the relevant page and passage, and come up with something supported by quotes. Tolkien thread gets bumped, Twain thread sinks by one notch.
Ditto.
With one exception. Someone once explained to me there are two kinds of science fiction. The futuristic/raygun stuff and the ‘maybe in a year or so type’ as in advanced computer programs, cloning, etc.
I don’t mind the near future, based in (semi) solid science kind. Still, I won’t read it - I’ll wait for the movie.
Just wanted to jump in here to point something out. It seems as though many of the people who dislike Science Fiction dismiss it as just being “Star Trek”-type stuff–as opposed to “real” literature. By making this broad generalization, they’re overlooking Science Fiction authors whose books tackle substantial themes and issues. If anyone is interested in Sci-Fi that deals with issues such as the nature of reality, identity, and religion–I heartily recommend Philip K Dick.
Books of his such as VALIS, **A Scanner Darkly **, Flow My Tears the Policeman Said, The Divine Invasion and The Transmigration of Timothy Archer deal with schizophrenia, drug addiction, reality vs. illusion, and some pretty deep theological philosophy.
His work is definitely not for everyone. But a great novel to start with, if anyone is interested, is The Man in the High Castle (1962 HUGO Award winner). It takes place in an alternate timeline–in which the Axis powers won WWII.
Also–the movies Total Recall and Blade Runner were based on his writings. (the films weren’t as good as the stories they were based on IMO)
I’ve read quite a few of the Science Fiction threads, and I haven’t seen him mentioned very often. Any other “Dick-heads” on the board?
I just want to point out that sf doesn’t fall into a simple two-part dichotomy. It’s not just Star Trek/Star Wars/Buck Rogers vs. deep philosophical stuff. It’s not even a spectrum between one and the other. You have a vast nonlinear range of types of science fiction and fantasy. Jules Verne, Larry Niven, Arthur C. Clarke, Hal Clement, Isaac Asimov, and Robert Heinlein (to name only a few) are “hardcore” sf writers, but they are vastly different from each other, and all more complex than a Star Trek episode. Olaf Stapleton is philosophical and windy. Ursula K. LeGuin writes anthropolicial sf – she’s technical, in a sense, but not “hard core” gadgety. Where would you fit her?
I just want to point out that sf doesn’t fall into a simple two-part dichotomy. It’s not just Star Trek/Star Wars/Buck Rogers vs. deep philosophical stuff. It’s not even a spectrum between one and the other. You have a vast nonlinear range of types of science fiction and fantasy. Jules Verne, Larry Niven, Arthur C. Clarke, Hal Clement, Isaac Asimov, and Robert Heinlein (to name only a few) are “hardcore” sf writers, but they are vastly different from each other, and all more complex than a Star Trek episode. Olaf Stapleton is philosophical and windy. Ursula K. LeGuin writes anthropolicial sf – she’s technical, in a sense, but not “hard core” gadgety. Where would you fit her?
The thing is that science fiction is really about the interaction between people and science. By its very nature it is going to be at least in part about science/technology/knowlede, and less exclusively about people. But this specialized knowledge need not overwhelm the human dimension. There are a lot of sf books by people with a woefully tiny knowledge of science – and some of these are very good (Fredric Brown, for one). Another problem is that, once you start resembling a “mainstream” novel too much, people decide you aren’t science fiction anymore, and take you out of the running as a serious contender for a “good” sf book.
(And, as for Milton, see sig.) (And on preview, Podkayne’s right too.)