Why the hatred for Science Fiction?

[CalMeacham]

There was an interesting article that I read a couple of years ago. I don’t recall where it appeared, but it concerned college literature professors lamenting the number of students who wrote down “Stephen King” as one of their faviorite authors. They apparently found this intolerable.

King, of course, is mainly horror fiction and fantasy fiction, with a few non-genre pieces. But even liking Rita Hayworth and The Shawshank Redemption would not have saved you from being reviled by these professors. And what really irks me was not that the students were putting forward King as an example of Great Literature, but merely stating that they listed him among their favorite writers. That’s true, even if he doesn’t meet one’s definition of a deep or worthy writer.

It’s not clear to me what separates Great Literature from Popular Writing. I’m re-reading “Huckleberry Finn” by Mark Twain right now. Twain was an unapologetically popular writer. Damned near everything he does in this book runs against what one ought to do to be considered Great Literature. He writes extended pieces in dialect (a handful of dufferent types). He constantly breaks the fourth wall and talks to the reader (he even knows that a book has been written with him as a character). It’s fuilled with self-conscious humor. Twain actually snatches a happy ending from the de rigeur unhappy ending. The book was condemned by literary figures like Louisa May Alcott and condemned by the Concord Public Library. Yet it was immensely popular, and it sold and sold. Now a lot of people consider it “The Great American Novel”, despite all of that.
I could make similar arguments about Poe and Dickens and Victor Hugo. A lot of stories that were held up as examples of great literature by my professors are by people I never heard from again.

A few of the works of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells were considered “Classic” enough that you’d find them under “Literature” rather than “Science Fiction”, but only a few, and the earliest ones, at that. By the time he died, Verne’s new books were no longer being translated into English (Some of them have only appeared in English for the first time within the past ten years). Try to find Wells’ “Star Begotten” in Classics. Or anywhere, today.

A select few SF and Fantasy writers have graduated towards literary status. Bradbury made in by the early 1950s, without renouncing his pulp roots. Recently Lovecraft and Philip K. Dick have had hardcover critical editions.

[Dangerosa]

[QUOTE=DLuxN8R-13]
Basically for the same reason crime novels and adventuere stories are similarly looked down upon–because it’s actually enjoyable and interesting to read, therefore it is not found in college literature anthologies and other vectors of so-called quality literature.

[/QUOTE]

That ignores that there is a lot of “Literature” which is enjoyable and interesting. The aforementioned Micheal Chabon’s The Amazing Adventure’s of Cavelier and Klay. Won a Pulitzer. Has a comic book theme. Edges on Fantasy. And is an enjoyable and interesting read. Booker Prize winner Possession - a “Romance” but always filed under Literature - one of my favorite reads. To Kill a Mockingbird - another favorite that is enjoyable and interesting.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
Booker Prize winner Possession - a “Romance” but always filed under Literature - one of my favorite reads.
[/QUOTE]

It’s not that kind of romance.

1. a novel or other prose narrative depicting heroic or marvelous deeds, pageantry, romantic exploits, etc., usually in a historical or imaginary setting.
2. the colorful world, life, or conditions depicted in such tales.
3. a medieval narrative, originally one in verse and in some Romance dialect, treating of heroic, fantastic, or supernatural events, often in the form of allegory.
4. a baseless, made-up story, usually full of exaggeration or fanciful invention.

Or an even apter one:

A species of fictitious writing, originally composed in meter in the Romance dialects, and afterward in prose, such as the tales of the court of Arthur, and of Amadis of Gaul; hence, any fictitious and wonderful tale; a sort of novel, especially one which treats of surprising adventures usually befalling a hero or a heroine; a tale of extravagant adventures, of love, and the like.

The romance novel has a long and legitimized history in literature that has little or nothing to do with the modern-day romance novel.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
This is just wrong. Few reality shows are popular anymore and the only ones that remain popular are the ones that are considered good television (case in point: The Amazing Race, Survivor, American Idol).
[/quote]

Even leaving aside the discussion of what is good or not, here’s what Neilsen has to say:
Top Season To Date Broadcast Shows By Viewers
July 3rd, 2008 by Bill Gorman

Rank Programs Network STD Viewers Live+SD (000) 
1 AMERICAN IDOL-TUESDAY FOX  27,665 
2 AMERICAN IDOL-WEDNESDAY FOX  26,843 
3 DANCING W/THE STARS-MON ABC  21,150 
4 DANCING WITH THE STARS ABC  19,173 
5 DANCING W/STARS RESULT-TU ABC  19,163 
6 DANCING W/STARS RESULTS ABC  17,787 
7 HOUSE FOX  16,208 
8 NBC SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL NBC  15,862 
9 CSI CBS  14,778 
10 DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES ABC  14,726 
11 SURVIVOR: CHINA CBS  14,280 
12 GREY’S ANATOMY-THU 9PM ABC  13,406 
13 NCIS CBS  13,349 
14 SURVIVOR: MICRONESIA CBS  12,744 
15 TWO AND A HALF MEN CBS  12,675 
16 CSI: MIAMI CBS  12,571 
17 EXTREME MAKEOVER:HOME ED. ABC  12,385 
18 60 MINUTES CBS  12,243 
19 AMERICA’S GOT TALENT NBC  12,229 
20 WITHOUT A TRACE CBS  12,023 

You have to be living in a different reality to think that few reality shows are popular any more.

But literary critics don’t look down on science fiction concepts, they look down on “Science Fiction: The Genre”, which to them is nothing more than whizbang space adventures, hot alien babes and media tie-ins. That’s the science fiction they look down on, and again, that happens to all genre fiction that’s not of a literary bent.

I thought that was my argument.

[Dangerosa]

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
It’s not that kind of romance.

Or an even apter one:

The romance novel has a long and legitimized history in literature that has little or nothing to do with the modern-day romance novel.
[/QUOTE]

Explain please? Posession seems as much a Romance novel to me as Oryx and Crake is SF.

[Frylock]

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
Even leaving aside the discussion of what is good or not, here’s what Neilsen has to say:
Top Season To Date Broadcast Shows By Viewers
July 3rd, 2008 by Bill Gorman

Rank Programs Network STD Viewers Live+SD (000) 
1 AMERICAN IDOL-TUESDAY FOX  27,665 
2 AMERICAN IDOL-WEDNESDAY FOX  26,843 
3 DANCING W/THE STARS-MON ABC  21,150 
4 DANCING WITH THE STARS ABC  19,173 
5 DANCING W/STARS RESULT-TU ABC  19,163 
6 DANCING W/STARS RESULTS ABC  17,787 
7 HOUSE FOX  16,208 
8 NBC SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL NBC  15,862 
9 CSI CBS  14,778 
10 DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES ABC  14,726 
11 SURVIVOR: CHINA CBS  14,280 
12 GREY’S ANATOMY-THU 9PM ABC  13,406 
13 NCIS CBS  13,349 
14 SURVIVOR: MICRONESIA CBS  12,744 
15 TWO AND A HALF MEN CBS  12,675 
16 CSI: MIAMI CBS  12,571 
17 EXTREME MAKEOVER:HOME ED. ABC  12,385 
18 60 MINUTES CBS  12,243 
19 AMERICA’S GOT TALENT NBC  12,229 
20 WITHOUT A TRACE CBS  12,023 

You have to be living in a different reality to think that few reality shows are popular any more.
[/quote]

I see two reality shows–both spinoffs from the same franchise–and a bunch of talent shows.

Is it the talent shows you’re referring to? I think it’s a mistake to lump them in with reality TV, though I know many do. I think the reasons would be pretty obvious so I won’t condescend to you by explaining them.

(On a second reading, maybe Home Makeover has some Reality to it.)

-FrL-

[OtakuLoki]

Dangerosa, when Exapno Mapcase talks about a genre, it’s defined rather strictly along the lines of the current publishing genre and marketing lines. Which often has little to do with the merits of the content of the work itself.

I’ve bumped into those rigid definitions before, myself. Though it was with the term Christian fiction for me.

So, when he talks about Romance fiction he’s going to be pointing to the section of the book store where the Harlequins and Silhouettes are sitting. While you seem to be defining a work as Romance, or SF, or Christian for that matter, the way I would be inclined to do so: whether those sorts of themes make up a major portion of the work.

I don’t believe that either definition is wrong, just having different uses. When talking about modern publishing and marketing, his is going to be more useful, while yours is more useful if I’m looking to get an idea of which books I’d want to read.
BTW, to build on something you said previously (post #35):

One thing “literary” novels do that “genre” novels don’t is they make themselves hard to classify…is Oryx and Crake an SF novel (in some ways) or is it a Coming of Age novel? Is Possession a Romance or a Mystery? Is Time Travelers Wife SF or Romance? There are certainly SF novels with a Romance bent - but the MAJORITY of them in the end are still much more SF than Romance.

The problem I have with this thinking is that when a work published as SF does successfully explore beyond what might be called SF, the work is often then co-opted and claimed to be other than SF. The poster-child for this is Daniel Keyes’ Flowers for Algernon. I cannot count the number of times I’ve gotten into arguments with people who love the story but cannot believe that it is SF. Outside of the very hardest of SF I cannot think of any SF work that I have enjoyed that I couldn’t accurately describe using some other genre marker: mystery, romance, identity, military.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

[QUOTE=Frylock]
I see two reality shows–both spinoffs from the same franchise–and a bunch of talent shows.

Is it the talent shows you’re referring to? I think it’s a mistake to lump them in with reality TV, though I know many do. I think the reasons would be pretty obvious so I won’t condescend to you by explaining them.

(On a second reading, maybe Home Makeover has some Reality to it.)

-FrL-
[/QUOTE]

Current Emmy nominees in the category of Outstanding Reality-competition Program
American Idol
Dancing With The Stars
Project Runway
The Amazing Race
Top Chef

Or go to MSNBC.com where they answer the question, How can I audition for reality shows? and see what shows they’re referring to.

The term for these shows is reality shows. A talent show is something that happens at the 4-H Club. There’s no absolute clear-cut definition, but there’s no absolute clear-cut definition to sf either, and everybody knows what that is.

[elfkin477]

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
Have you read the reviews for books like Chabon’s and Barry’s? Virtually every single one of them go out of their way to ensure their audiences that the books are good, and therefore are not sf.
[/QUOTE]
Have you read Max Barry’s book, though? Jennifer Government is one of my favorite books. It’s not science-fiction, so of course reviews say it isn’t. It’s Political satire. The only way one could even remotely think of it as science-fiction is if they included every novel set in the future as science fiction. Is 1984 science-fiction?

[Dangerosa]

[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
Dangerosa, when Exapno Mapcase talks about a genre, it’s defined rather strictly along the lines of the current publishing genre and marketing lines. Which often has little to do with the merits of the content of the work itself.

I’ve bumped into those rigid definitions before, myself. Though it was with the term Christian fiction for me.

So, when he talks about Romance fiction he’s going to be pointing to the section of the book store where the Harlequins and Silhouettes are sitting. While you seem to be defining a work as Romance, or SF, or Christian for that matter, the way I would be inclined to do so: whether those sorts of themes make up a major portion of the work.

I don’t believe that either definition is wrong, just having different uses. When talking about modern publishing and marketing, his is going to be more useful, while yours is more useful if I’m looking to get an idea of which books I’d want to read.
BTW, to build on something you said previously (post #35):

The problem I have with this thinking is that when a work published as SF does successfully explore beyond what might be called SF, the work is often then co-opted and claimed to be other than SF. The poster-child for this is Daniel Keyes’ Flowers for Algernon. I cannot count the number of times I’ve gotten into arguments with people who love the story but cannot believe that it is SF. Outside of the very hardest of SF I cannot think of any SF work that I have enjoyed that I couldn’t accurately describe using some other genre marker: mystery, romance, identity, military.
[/QUOTE]

We are talking across each other than - because I understand that. But publishing (or library cataloging or any other type of classification system) has wiggle room. Georgette Heyer is filed under Literature in some bookstores and Romance in others - she wrote popular Regency romances (as both a literary genre and a publishing genre) but they’ve stood time and seem to - with the last printing - be moving away from being filed with romances and are now taken ‘Seriously.’

Someone made the decision to stop publishing Flowers for Algernon as SF and start publishing it as Lit. Someone decided to not publish Handmaids Tale as SF and publish it as Lit. In part, genre fiction gets no respect because “Someone” picks out the gems and publishes them as lit - once in a while some literature gems slip through the cracks and get published in genre (Mary Doria Russell springs to mind) - but the overwhelming majority of genre literature (or perhaps more correctly, genre writers) didn’t make the cut (and its hard to move from genre to literature - though Neil Gaiman may be doing it - easier to move from literature to genre, i.e. Chabon).

[Jayn_Newell]

I’d just like to pop in and thank Expano for his posts in this thread. I’m a lifelong SF&F fan, and it has irked me to no end that the genres I favour tend to get shoved into a corner somewhere and ignored. The few authors that manage to find popular success usually lie somewhere on the borders of mainstream literature, meaning our world with some SF&F elements thrown in. As burundi put it, people seem to favour the mirror over the window.

[CalMeacham]

Have you read Max Barry’s book, though? Jennifer Government is one of my favorite books. It’s not science-fiction, so of course reviews say it isn’t. It’s Political satire. The only way one could even remotely think of it as science-fiction is if they included every novel set in the future as science fiction. Is 1984 science-fiction?

Depends on who does the classifying, doesn’t it? I was delighted, upon reading Jennifer Government, that it acknowledged its debt to Frederick Pohl and C,M, Kornbluth’s The Space Merchants, a novel it strongly resembles. But everybody clasifies The Space Merchants as Science Fiction. Gee, it’s set in the future. But it’s political satire. Hmmmm.

It still seems like a case of “If it’s good it’s not science fiction”. Movie reviewers called the orihginal Chritian Nyby/Howard Hawks version of The Thing an “army buddy movie in disguise”, not science fiction. Is H.P. Lovecraft Horror or Fantasy? It occurs to me that many of these books defy simple either-or pigeonholing. Jennifer Government is science fiction social satire. But if it helps Barry’s credibility and sales not to call it science fiction, that’s finbe by me.

[Alessan]

[QUOTE=elfkin477]
Is 1984 science-fiction?
[/QUOTE]

Yes. Yes, it is.

[Justin_Bailey]

[QUOTE=Alessan]
Yes. Yes, it is.
[/QUOTE]

Bullshit says this librarian. What “science fiction” is there in 1984?

[Terminus_Est]

[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
The problem I have with this thinking is that when a work published as SF does successfully explore beyond what might be called SF, the work is often then co-opted and claimed to be other than SF. The poster-child for this is Daniel Keyes’ Flowers for Algernon. I cannot count the number of times I’ve gotten into arguments with people who love the story but cannot believe that it is SF. Outside of the very hardest of SF I cannot think of any SF work that I have enjoyed that I couldn’t accurately describe using some other genre marker: mystery, romance, identity, military.
[/QUOTE]

You could possibly silence them by saying that “Flowers for Algernon” (good example, by the way) was first published in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction and won both the Hugo and the Nebula awards - the two most prestigious science fiction awards.

[Terminus_Est]

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
Bullshit says this librarian. What “science fiction” is there in 1984?
[/QUOTE]

The fact that it was written in 1948 and hence the year 1984 would have been the future should be your biggest clue.

[Not saying that all science fiction is set in the future or even necessarily about the future.]

[Mr.Excellent]

[QUOTE=Terminus Est]
The fact that it was written in 1948 and hence the year 1984 would have been the future should be your biggest clue.

[Not saying that all science fiction is set in the future or even necessarily about the future.]
[/QUOTE]

I have to call “shenanigans” here. The defining characteristic of science fiction is the use of fiction about science to drive key plot points. Time-travel is real, faster-than-light space travel is real, organ transplantation is dirt-cheap and easy, etc. - you take any one of a million science-related premises, assume they’re real, and then build a story in the resulting world.

1984 doesn’t do that. Sure, it takes place in the future - but the technology of that future is incidental to the plot. Sure, telescreens didn’t exist when Orwell wrote 1984 - but the technology for ubiquitous surveillance did, and that’s what really drives the horror of 1984. Similarly, totalitarianism certainly existed in 1948.

On the other hand, “Flowers for Algernon” is science fiction - the plot is driven by fictitious science (an operation to correct mental retardation), and the consequences of that science.

[eleanorigby]

Romance novels may sell better etc, but that doesn’t mean they get more respect than SF novels, IMO. I am no great fan of most Harlequins etc, and I don’t deny they make a great deal of money, but they are as formulaic as Westerns (which are the true dwellers of the no-respect pit, and rightly so, again, IMO).

But even within the romance genre, there are levels of quality. I don’t know any crappy authors (because I’m not a romance reader), but is Jennifer Crusie romance or chick-lit? Chick-lit is better received and regarded than a Silhouette book.

I thought another facet of SF was man vs machine or ideology–doesn’t 1984 fit that definition?

I think it boils down to this: the more formulaic a novel is, the more likely it is to be pigeon holed into whatever category it fits best. There are several authors who write in more than one genre, but they tend to use different pen names to do so. I blame the publishing industry for this–the promotion machinery that has us looking for the new Danielle Steel or Stephen King, instead a good story. Lit critics I never will understand. It seems to me that the more obscure and difficult a book is to read, the more they like it. IMO, prose should be clear–I’m funny that way…

[Terminus_Est]

[QUOTE=Mr. Excellent]
I have to call “shenanigans” here. The defining characteristic of science fiction is the use of fiction about science to drive key plot points. Time-travel is real, faster-than-light space travel is real, organ transplantation is dirt-cheap and easy, etc. - you take any one of a million science-related premises, assume they’re real, and then build a story in the resulting world.

1984 doesn’t do that. Sure, it takes place in the future - but the technology of that future is incidental to the plot. Sure, telescreens didn’t exist when Orwell wrote 1984 - but the technology for ubiquitous surveillance did, and that’s what really drives the horror of 1984. Similarly, totalitarianism certainly existed in 1948.

On the other hand, “Flowers for Algernon” is science fiction - the plot is driven by fictitious science (an operation to correct mental retardation), and the consequences of that science.
[/QUOTE]

What technology for ubiquitous surveillance existed in 1948? Rockets existed in the 1950’s. Are the gee-whiz super-science stories involving rocket travel in the pulp magazines of that era therefore not science fiction?

Regardless, science fiction - perhaps you prefer the more pretentious term “speculative fiction” - isn’t only about science or technology. It’s about change, the extrapolation thereof, and the impact of that change on humans, humanity and human society. Yes, this includes scientific and technological change, but also encompasses sociological change, political change, temporal change, historical change, accidental change, ubiquitous change, accelerating change, even the lack of change. What happens when totalitarianism encompasses the world? What happens to society under endless war? What happens when the past is rewritten? What happens when every thought is controlled? What happens when the very language is changed so no undesirable thoughts can even be formed? 1984 is most certainly science fiction.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

If it is still possible for anyone outside the literary establishment to seriously argue that 1984 or Jennifer Government is not science fiction, then my point is made. And I can go lie down with a cold compress on my head. :smack: