posted
This has always bugged me and came up in my English class recently. Much of the world doesn't seem to count Sci-Fi as literature. It stands apart in a genre separate from fiction/literature same as does Mystery and Horror. But it seems to stand apart even more so. It seems to almost be delagated to the level of trashy romance novels (you know, the type that's almost literary porn) in many people's minds. Why is this?
Admittedly, much of it that is space opera. A bunch of characters galavanting around one galaxy or another and having a jolly good time. But much of it has some observation on human nature, some point to make, some prediction to try, or some idea it's positing. Why is it that these don't count as literature? What makes something literature? What's more, what makes it great literature? Is it the writing style? Is it the source material? The topics it discusses? Why doesn't Sci-fi count?
NOTE: Occationally an old piece of Sci-Fi makes it and seems to be counted as literature. But this is very rare. The examples that come to mind are 1984 and (sorta) Frankenstein (horror/sci-fi really). But some people don't even count those.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:NOTE: Occationally an old piece of Sci-Fi makes it and seems to be counted as literature. But this is very rare. The examples that come to mind are 1984 and (sorta) Frankenstein (horror/sci-fi really). But some people don't even count those.
It really depends on the context. In an educational setting, I've seen Vernor Vinge, Phillip K. Dick and OSC's novels all used on an equal basis with other contemporary works of fiction.
In terms of how the general populace views it, well...there are many years of social stigma to overcome first.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I spent two years of high school arguing with my English teachers about this. When I tried to list SciFi books that were generally accepted as 'literary', my teacher claimed that Brave New World wasn't SciFi. I disabused her of that notion.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's my take, which is sort of inspired by some essays Mr. Card has written:
It's because most science fiction doesn't depend on the nonsensical games with symbolism and all that balderdash that much "serious" academic literature does. For the most part it's written in a straightforward way for a voluntary audience who doesn't have to read it (as compared to much of what's assigned in English class which very few would read on their own), and who are quite capable of understanding what it's about without having an English professor explain it.
That accessibility makes it less appealing to those English teachers who think literature must be obscure, difficult, experimental, etc. to be worth reading. If ordinary readers can make sense of it and analyze it by themselves, what's an English professor to do?
Of course there are expections to this. There are plenty of English professors who love well told stories even if they're easy to read, and plenty of science fiction writers who play games with their style to be more "deep".
And there's nothing wrong with people liking academic literature and its symbolisms and obscure points etc. if that's their taste. I just think it's a mistake to think those elements are necessary for literature to be "serious". However such folks seem to be in the majority at some English departments.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ginol_Enam: My English teacher, at the beginning of the school year, stated that fantasy and sci-fi were fun, but hardly literature.
She listed specifically (that I can remember), Harry Potter and Tolkien. Freain' Tolkien.
Dear God. Tolkien epitomizes literature in his writings. I mean, sure, there's no deep agenda or hidden meaning in the trilogy. It's simply an epic conflict between good and evil. But the songs and languages ALONE surely qualify the trilogy as being a great literary work.
Why, oh why, are such stupid people continually allowed to teach? Your old teacher should probably have been canned long ago.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jules Verne wrote about alien invasions, travelling to a hidden world in the center of the earth and to the depths of the ocean. All places that were unexplored in his time. I consider his works to be great works of literature. I think it takes more time for science fiction (at least in some forms) to be accepted because speculative fiction can seem so out there. That said, I had my first exposure to OSC in a 9th grade english class. We read Speaker for the Dead.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: Dear God. Tolkien epitomizes literature in his writings. I mean, sure, there's no deep agenda or hidden meaning in the trilogy. It's simply an epic conflict between good and evil. But the songs and languages ALONE surely qualify the trilogy as being a great literary work.
Why, oh why, are such stupid people continually allowed to teach? Your old teacher should probably have been canned long ago. [/QB]
Oh, I could go on and on about my English teacher (insulting parents and their children on the phone; giving students bad grades just because). Unfortunately, she's one of the more respected teachers (she, apparentely, used to be a professor somewhere at sometime.).
posted
This is one of those times I'm very grateful for the teachers I have.
For students in the academic program I'm in (International Baccalaureate) a very well-researched painstakign essay is required to be worked on for a while and turned in finally in our senior year. We are to choose a teacher to mentor us on our essay: critique, give us suggestions for our topic, actually approve our topic, and so on. Before we were due to choose our mentor, I scouted it out three lit teachers to see if they'd let me do what I wanted to. I wanted to write an essay dealing with either the conventions and tools used in comic books across cultures or comparing the Sci-Fi/Fantasy comic book Sandman to a Greek tragedy.
One teacher, as soon as I mentioned the first topic, got really excited and started reccomending books I should read. She couldn't mentor me, but she had me come in one morning to discuss the ideas on it--she wanted to know more. Turned out I gave an informal presentation on the conventions of comics to a few teachers she had broguht along.
The second liked both ideas. He offered suggestions for specific tragedies for comparison. Since he's my toughest teacher and good with pulling apart my writing, I picked him. Then . . . he got a position at another school.
The third teacher and now my mentor was just as excited as the first. She was one of those at my little presentation.
So. Do they think of fantasy and science fiction as lti? I think I'm lucky to have teachers that judge on content rather than genre.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my AP English class senior year, we have to pick a book a month to read and write a paper on. It wasn't a book report per se, we had to ask a hard question about the book and then write an essay on it.
For my first book, I chose Ender's Game. But I was flatly rejected by my English teacher, which shocked me, because I thought he was more enlightened by that. Later I realized he has a huge bias against Science Fiction in general.
So far as I'm concerned, sci-fi and fantasy is just a setting, in the same way that Victorian era writing is a setting, or any other writing for that matter. It doesn't define the truth or meaning behind the story and certainly not the destination, it's just the vehicle of transportation
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with you, Lyrhawn. I've often wondered if science fiction would be better defined as a literary device, rather than a genre. It just seems that the term covers too large a spectrum to lump it all together in one genre.
A Brave New World, Star Wars, Stargate, and Speaker for the Dead are all science fiction, yet they have very different goals, and shouldn't be judged in the same light. I'm not talking about issues of quality, but the nature of the stories.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that there are real reasons why science fiction isn't considered literature. Science fiction, in general, tends to place a very large emphasis on plot and places a much smaller emphasis on character. And good literature is all about characters. Further, the writing itself is frequently far inferior to that in more literary works.
The emphasis on plot makes sense since so much of science fiction is exploring ideas about the world around us. Isaach Asimov was a fantastic science fiction writer, but his writing itself was definately subpar and all of his characters were flat. What made him great were his ideas. There is definately something to cherish in that, but an idea alone isn't art. Further, I think that the works of science fiction that are most beloved are those that do incorporate a literary emphasis on the quality of writing. They also are about characters instead of just using the characters as vehicles to further the author's idea or plot.
Finally, I don't think science fiction is more disdained than other categories. Those that look down on non-literary books seem to dislike all commerical fiction. I think that there is a lot, perhaps most, of science fiction that is about neither characters nor an idea, but is simply a plot. I think it is these books that give science fiction a bad name. They make it so that the few truly great pieces of science fiction are less visible.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your teacher thought Brave New World wasn't Sci-fi? Wha...? I'm confused...
I'm lucky, though. My teacher is the one I borrowed the Amber Spyglass series from, and we frequently talk about American Gods in class. She's recommended it to all her students. Another teacher gave me the teacher's edition of Ender's Game. The school decided not to teach it anymore. English department at my school=awesome. New principal=Pbbbt!!!
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: NOTE: Occationally an old piece of Sci-Fi makes it and seems to be counted as literature. But this is very rare. The examples that come to mind are 1984 and (sorta) Frankenstein (horror/sci-fi really). But some people don't even count those.
This is an easy question to answer! Most BOOKS don't make it into the "accepted" literature, most don't survive in print for more than a few years, and those that do are either acceptionally good or otherwise very lucky. I think considering the history of sci-fi being so very short, and the genre being so very big, your likely to find about as much of it in the "canon" of academic lit as is representative of its popularity.
The thing is like all genres, sci-fi is 95% garbage, like you said, and the little that is any good is often not "great." However you named a few conspicuous early examples of important sci-fi that IS taught in school. Think about Jules Verne, and what about Moby Dick, or Frankenstein, or the Orson Wells, or Isaac Asimov? All those authors are taught in school, at least in my school, because I read each of them as part of a class.
I don't really know why you think people don't percieve sci-fi as lit. Its probably because you call it "sci-fi." This pigeon-holes it a bit, and good literature never follows such moronic genre labeling as fans and the public are wont to use. I am always frustrated by the endless lumping of "sci-fi/horror/fantasy," as if I am interested in literature because it has to do with the future, or elves, or monsters, and not because its any good. Literature is LITERATURE! No matter the genre, a good book stands on its own merits. Unfortunately a great deal of bad books, alot of them sci-fi, attempt to stand on the merits of the genre, and endless legions of 11 year old consumers like I used to be who will ask their parents for Star Trek books, and get them simply because the parents are ecstatic that their kids show some interest in reading something, even if it isn't really very good.
I mean think about it- Have you read Frankenstein? What in that book is "horror?" What in that sad tale evokes the smell of popcorn and the murmer of teenagers at a drive-in? Just because its about a monster, its "Horror?" I don't get that... wasn't the odyssey about monsters and witches and potheads?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, I want you to take your entire post and apply it to music, substituting phrases like "sci-fi/horror/fantasy" with "pop music."
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dav: That accessibility makes it less appealing to those English teachers who think literature must be obscure, difficult, experimental, etc. to be worth reading. If ordinary readers can make sense of it and analyze it by themselves, what's an English professor to do?
I agree with your overall point Dav, but this little snipe is petty and pointless. I'm not an English prof, but none I've ever met has given me the impression that this was even close to accurate. If you read English for 7 or 8 years to get your degree, you'd inevitably be drawn to more difficult literature, this is a natural part of specialized education, not a conspiracy.
You seem to have adopted OSC's anti-elitist rhetoric, and I think that's quite a pity, since it blinds him to people's honest motivations, and meanly ostricizes literature buffs and academics, who surprisingly don't like to be accused of this kind of stuff. Its easy for you to make that claim, and easy for you to sight reasons why you might be onto something, however it is still a useless petty thing to throw about.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Orincoro, I want you to take your entire post and apply it to music, substituting phrases like "sci-fi/horror/fantasy" with "pop music."
I've been doing alot of that lately as well- applying to the same reasoning to my views of all media. We've had that discussion I believe, and will doubtless have it again.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect the reason why many English teachers don't consider science-fiction to be literature is directly related to the reason why many high school students don't consider reading literature to be worthwhile.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I use Sci-Fi and Fantasy a lot in my classes, both in High School and University levels. Recently I taught a "Tradition and Rupture in Literature: Deconstruction of the heroic figure as protagonist" course, in which I used the "Ender" books (between others). I thought it was fun, and the studets seemed to also think so.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Science Fiction has struggled a very long time to qualify as "literature" and has made a fair amount of headway in that area. So much so that many colleges have courses on Science Fiction, and high schools teach units on the genre.
Fantasy does not have that sort of street cred, yet, though they too are fighting for it. So much so, that they changed the rules of the World Fantasy Award when Neil Gaiman and Charles Vess was awarded it in 1991 for their work on a comic book short story. They didn't want their hopes of literary acceptance to be dashed by including comic books in their umbrella.
Science fiction is certainly considered literature, though many teachers believe (in error) that something that is "literature" loses its status as "science fiction" somehow. The Brave New World example is apt, there.
Here's a decent list of accepted Science Fiction works that would count as literature to most english teachers (who probably don't think of them as science fiction).
Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley Journey to the Center of the Earth, by Jules Verne From the Earth to the Moon, by Jules Verne 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, by Jules Verne War of the Worlds, by H. G. Wells The Time Machine, by H. G Wells The Island of Dr. Moreau, by H. G. Wells 1984, by George Orwell Stranger in a Strange Land, by Robert Heinlein Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley Farenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury Slaughterhouse Five, by Kurt Vonnegut
Fantasy is a lot further behind Science Fiction in gaining respectability, for sure.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, what I want to know is why so many people think that romance novels are so trashy? The romance genre gets a much worse rap than either sci fi or fantasy, so bad that many fans of the genre don't admit to it (says one who is only beginning to come to terms with her love for romances).
I'd argue that a comment like this:
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: It seems to almost be delagated to the level of trashy romance novels (you know, the type that's almost literary porn) in many people's minds.
does the same thing to romances that you're complaining about with sci fi.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It ain't literature until that first generation of readers who were old enough to make their own purchases when a given book was first published has died, and the generations after the death of that first generation voluntarily keep buying and reading those books. And I don't mean as forced purchases for eg college courses, or through reading forced upon students by their schools. By that standard, science fiction and fantasy stands up pretty well compared to other fiction published during the same years. "Occasionally an old piece of" fiction in general "makes it...to be...literature. But this is very rare" honor afforded to only a select few pieces of fiction.
The problem is that writing that "seems to be counted as literature" far far far more often isn't anything even vaguely resembling literature. It is merely stuff chosen by people who have nothing to sell other than "I'm better*educated than you are. Therefore, I have better taste." Unfortunately, those self-deluding folks are the ones who are deciding which books that don't fit my "first generation of readers...has died" survival test are defined as "literature", as well as choosing which books are forced upon students as "literature".
* Though fancying themselves to be the literati, they are more properly labeled with illiterati : people who can read, but can't comprehend. Tastewise, they are pretty much the same as the visual-art critics/judges who think that a bed covered in urine-soaked sheets or a pile of elephant dung given the title of "Madonna..." is a "serious artistic expression of great merit."
posted
"Fantasy is a lot further behind Science Fiction in gaining respectability, for sure."
The Illiad , The Odyssey , Oedipus Rex , Beowolf , Le Morte d'Arthur , Don Quixote , Midsummer Night's Dream , Pinochio , Dracula and many many many others are all fantasies.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In high school I read Hesse's The Glass Bead Game for my lit class. When we finished we had to write a critical essay on our book. I gave a little background (The Glass Bead Game is set in a future society that is very different from our own, and I needed to give some indication of that to discuss what I wanted to discuss). After I wrote the paper, my teacher asked me to talk to her about my choice of a book. It was one of my favorite conversations ever.
My teacher: I'm not sure The Glass Bead Game really qualifies as literature. It seems very science fictiony to me. Perhaps you should have choosen a more literary book.
Me: Oh, I'm so sorry, I just assumed that since it won the Nobel Prize for Literature, it would qualify as literature for the purposes of this class.
My teacher: Oh, well, in that case I guess it was alright...
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "Fantasy is a lot further behind Science Fiction in gaining respectability, for sure."
The Illiad , The Odyssey , Oedipus Rex , Beowolf , Le Morte d'Artur , Don Quixote , Midsummer Night's Dream, Pinochio , Dracula and many many many others are all fantasies.
Something I've always wondered about, does having gods take an active role in the world make a story a fantasy? Does the existence of gods that actually do things count as magic? The Kushiel's Legacy series is often referred to as having magic, but I don't feel that describing the role of the gods in that series as magic is accurate.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, what I want to know is why so many people think that romance novels are so trashy? The romance genre gets a much worse rap than either sci fi or fantasy, so bad that many fans of the genre don't admit to it (says one who is only beginning to come to terms with her love for romances).
I'm not sure whether you're arguing that romance novels aren't trash or that the "Romance" genre is broad enough to include literary works that aren't tripe, but either way I'm going to disagree with you.
My simple evidence is this: go to a book store and find the science fiction section. It contains books that have some literary merit, regardless of the genre.
Now go find the romance section.
If you're going to argue that those books have literary merit, I might die laughing. The most celebrated authors of the genre are little more than pornographers and perpetrators of gender inequality.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Erosomniac, how many romance novels have you read? Honest question here--I have never actually read one, myself. While what you're saying about romance novels and their authors certainly fits the stereotype that I grew up believing, it isn't something that I've ever tested by doing any exploration of the genre. It could very well be true, but I don't know if it is or not, and I know that I am not familiar enough with the genre to judge it with any accuracy.
I will say that if I go into the science fiction section and randomly pull books off the shelf, it's not a given that I'm going to find works of literary merit--there is an awful lot of crap in the SF section, and it would be easy to randomly select 10 books and have all of them suck. Given that, I don't think that the same test in the romance section would be any more accurate.
For people who defend the genre, what romance novels do you see as candidates for being considered "literature"?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Books currently put into the romance genre generally aren't romances in the classical definition of the word. eg The Three Musketeers and War and Peace are romance novels.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Erosomniac, how many romance novels have you read?
Enough. Two different girls tried to convince me that they weren't just girl porn - unsuccessfully. An ex also had a large stack of them that I went (flipped) through. They were all so terrible that it inspired me to do some research into who the "famous" romance novel authors were, and I did actually bother to read one book by each. I had trouble getting past the first two or three pages - imagine all of the worst qualities of Eddings' writing, minus a coherent plot, plus teaser sex.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Three Musketeers a romance novel? The main female love interest is poisoned by the female anatonist, who is then beheaded by a musketeer lynchmob. My favorite part of the novel is when Dartanian (spelling?) returns from England to find his comrads, only to discover they had all lost the horses he had sent back for them. Porthos is particulaly funny.
I have also recently read Gullivers Travels. This is also a story that has commonalities to modern science fiction. - A man who travels where no man has gone before - Encounters with various alien species with odd cultures and biologies (the Lilliputions, the giants, the necromancers, and the Hynonmms(spelling?) and Yahoos. - There is an island that floats on air, the means of which are explained scientifically (although Jonathan Swift's science was a bit off) - An island with degenerate humans (Yahoos) and intelegent horses (Planet of the Apes may have taken bits from this one)
The way I see it, Sci-Fi stories have been around for a long time, but weren't considered a distinct genre until recently. If you go read the Best of Science Fiction compliation edited by OSC, you will see he is of a similar opinion.
Posts: 157 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Illiad , The Odyssey , Oedipus Rex , Beowolf , Le Morte d'Arthur , Don Quixote , Midsummer Night's Dream , Pinochio , Dracula and many many many others are all fantasies.
I think fantasy suffers from a lack of solid definition. Without a definition, it's hard to accurately call something fantasy or not. Does "possessing fantastic or supernatural elements" make something fantasy? If so, you've got to throw in all of the above, along with most religious texts (modern or otherwise), all literature that includes the idea of the devil, angels or ghosts, etc. I feel that's too broad.
Using such a broad definition, you'd include more typically classified fantasy such as Tolkien or Mercedes Lackey, but also have works like Macbeth, Hamlet, the Inferno, the Bible, and all classic works that mention the involvement of gods or superheroic acts by heroes.
Science fiction, as a genre, is more clearly defined. It must have roots in our own scientific/sociopolitical reality, with deviations explained and incorporated using a coherent set of scientific/sociopolitical rules. Even dragons can be science fiction, if they are set up with in a scientific context of a lost or alien species. The genre has more boundaries, I think, than fantasy, and is easier to categorize.
Fantasy can, with a wide angle lens, include any of the following existing genres:
Modern horror (Nightmare on Elm Street) Gothic horror (Dracula) Arthurian romance (Le Morte D'Arthur) Fairy Tales (Grimm's/Midsummer Night's Dream) Myths and Legend (Odyssey/Beowulf) Ghost stories (Sleepy Hollow) Parable and fable (Aesop's Fables) Religious fiction (Exorcist) Social Satire (Gulliver's Travels/Animal Farm) Comic Books (Watchmen/Maus)
But what makes something uniquely fantasy, that isn't categorized better by one of these genres already listed? Or should Fantasy be an umbrella to cover them all?
Right now, fantasy is already so fragmented. It's broken into Sword and Sorcery (Fritz Leiber), Epic Fantasy (Tolkien/Jordan), Comedic Fantasy (Terry Pratchett), Dark Fantasy/Fantasy Horror (Lovecraft), etc.
posted
Most of the books in the Romance section are pretty lousy. There are a few exceptions.
I think that part of the problem with the perception of both Romance and SF/F - and mystery - is that often the genre are taken over by formula type books. This is especially true of Romance, but it was somewhat true for SF/F. I think this leads to the bad reputation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most genres suffer that, I think. Westerns and Romance especially, and the large body of work that's "Tolkienesque Fantasy" certainly.
It's almost as though putting a genre on something precludes it from being literature. Genre by definition means it follows some standard set of cues, so formulaic writing is almost expected, I think.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Erosomniac, how many romance novels have you read?
Enough. Two different girls tried to convince me that they weren't just girl porn - unsuccessfully. An ex also had a large stack of them that I went (flipped) through. They were all so terrible that it inspired me to do some research into who the "famous" romance novel authors were, and I did actually bother to read one book by each. I had trouble getting past the first two or three pages - imagine all of the worst qualities of Eddings' writing, minus a coherent plot, plus teaser sex.
Interesting. Cool that you've taken the time to research this. I've been thinking that I should for some time, but I haven't really wanted to badly enough to actually do so.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Interesting. Cool that you've taken the time to research this.
I'm not sure I'd say I've done my due dilligence ( ) on the subject, but to quote Bean, "You don't have to eat the entire turd to know it's not a crabcake."
quote:but I haven't really wanted to badly enough to actually do so.
Morbid curiousity fuels more of my life than I'm comfortable with admitting. Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Interesting. Cool that you've taken the time to research this. I've been thinking that I should for some time, but I haven't really wanted to badly enough to actually do so.
I would suggest Mary Stewart (yes, the same Mary Stewart) for an entirely readable, older example of that genre. Although to get the full effect, go with Barbara Cartland.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I'm not sure whether you're arguing that romance novels aren't trash or that the "Romance" genre is broad enough to include literary works that aren't tripe, but either way I'm going to disagree with you.
I'm not arguing either, it's more that I'm arguing that romance's reputation is much worse than is deserved. There's certainly plenty of trash, but not all of it is. As to the genre itself, I would say that a romance is any story that focuses primarily on the romantic relationship between two people and typically has a happily-ever-after ending. That certainly precludes most of what is considered literature, since happily-ever-afters are frowned upon in that category.
quote:My simple evidence is this: go to a book store and find the science fiction section. It contains books that have some literary merit, regardless of the genre.
Now go find the romance section.
If you're going to argue that those books have literary merit, I might die laughing.
What about Pride and Prejudice or Wuthering Heights or anything else by Austen or a Bronte sister? Sure. they're not found in the romance section (because those books are 'respectable' and romance is not 'respectable', but they are very much romance novels and are considered by many to be the start of the genre. Would you say those have no literary merit?
As to most of what is found in the romance section, no, I don't think that it should be considered literature. Most of it's fluff. And there's nothing wrong with fluff - it's just fluff.
quote: The most celebrated authors of the genre are little more than pornographers and perpetrators of gender inequality.
I'm curious who you consider to be the most celebrated authors and why you consider them to be pornographers. Because if you're just looking to read about sex, that's an awful lot of pages to read and money to spend just for three or four sex scenes. Also, two of the classic romance novelists, Georgette Heyer and Victoria Holt have no sex scenes in their novels (actually, there are entire sub-genres within romance that don't have sex). And it's not like sex scenes are exclusive to romances.
As to perpetuating gender inequalities, I don't see that so much in the authors I read, but I also avoid many of the older but still popular romances that have the obligatory 'hero rapes heroine but she enjoys it because deep down she's in love with him because who could resist such a manly man?' scene.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What about Pride and Prejudice or Wuthering Heights or anything else by Austen or a Bronte sister? Sure. they're not found in the romance section (because those books are 'respectable' and romance is not 'respectable', but they are very much romance novels and are considered by many to be the start of the genre. Would you say those have no literary merit?
Here's where the broad definition of romance comes in, as I don't consider any of the above to be romance novels. The term "romance novel" in and of itself has a definition forever seperating the above works from the genre.
quote:I'm curious who you consider to be the most celebrated authors and why you consider them to be pornographers.
Anyone with more than 10 books on the shelf (total, not necessarily seperate titles) is, in my opinion, a celebrated author. Anyone with a book frontlining the section is a celebrated author.
quote:Because if you're just looking to read about sex, that's an awful lot of pages to read and money to spend just for three or four sex scenes.
As I understand it, part of the appeal is the waiting and dramatic build up TO the sex - kind of like, you know, real sex.
quote:Also, two of the classic romance novelists, Georgette Heyer and Victoria Holt have no sex scenes in their novels (actually, there are entire sub-genres within romance that don't have sex). And it's not like sex scenes are exclusive to romances.
I found both Georgette Heyer and Victoria Holt, both of whom I've had the extreme misfortune of reading, are both tripe factories, despite the lack of sex (in case you're curious, the novels I read were Lady of Quality and Road to Somethingorother, I forget). Sex scenes are certainly not exclusive to romances, but they typically have a point, instead of being the point.
quote:As to perpetuating gender inequalities, I don't see that so much in the authors I read, but I also avoid many of the older but still popular romances that have the obligatory 'hero rapes heroine but she enjoys it because deep down she's in love with him because who could resist such a manly man?' scene.
I'm thinking more along the lines of '30something powerful corporate executive is a millionaire with everything but she cries alone at night because she needs a man, watch as ultrasuave moron who, GASP, is the CEO of a competing company plays all the cards right and teaches her the meaning of love.'
Or '20something woman is miserable with her life, sits around all day eating donuts and miraculously never getting fat, magically attracts the attention of CEO of huge company [same one as before, in case you were wondering] who completes her life.'
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: [Here's where the broad definition of romance comes in, as I don't consider any of the above to be romance novels. The term "romance novel" in and of itself has a definition forever seperating the above works from the genre.
Why not? What is your definition of a romance novel?
quote:
quote:I'm curious who you consider to be the most celebrated authors and why you consider them to be pornographers.
Anyone with more than 10 books on the shelf (total, not necessarily seperate titles) is, in my opinion, a celebrated author. Anyone with a book frontlining the section is a celebrated author.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to pick apart your methods, I was just wondering if I'd read any of the authors you'd sampled, because it's quite possible I'd feel the same way about some of them.
quote:As I understand it, part of the appeal is the waiting and dramatic build up TO the sex - kind of like, you know, real sex.
quote:Sex scenes are certainly not exclusive to romances, but they typically have a point, instead of being the point.
Well, since I consider romances to be about the relationship between the protagonists and sex is part of the development of the relationship, sex does have a point. Very few of the books I've read have sex scenes just to have sex scenes and those that do are certainly less enjoyable.
quote:I found both Georgette Heyer and Victoria Holt, both of whom I've had the extreme misfortune of reading, are both tripe factories, despite the lack of sex (in case you're curious, the novels I read were Lady of Quality and Road to Somethingorother, I forget).
Meh. I haven't read either in years, but I tended to enjoy Heyer when I did (don't remember that book though). And I was always ambivalent about Holt, and I absolutely hated that book.
quote:I'm thinking more along the lines of '30something powerful corporate executive is a millionaire with everything but she cries alone at night because she needs a man, watch as ultrasuave moron who, GASP, is the CEO of a competing company plays all the cards right and teaches her the meaning of love.'
Or '20something woman is miserable with her life, sits around all day eating donuts and miraculously never getting fat, magically attracts the attention of CEO of huge company [same one as before, in case you were wondering] who completes her life.'
Yeah. That type as perpetuated by Harlequin and some other publishers is still popular, but I won't touch them.
Like I said before, I don't deny that there are plenty of bad romances out there, I just don't agree that all romances are bad. I'm also not trying to convince anyone that they should like romances. Just don't condemn them all.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems to almost be delagated to the level of trashy romance novels (you know, the type that's almost literary porn) in many people's minds.
I haven't read any romance novels, and probably never will since I really don't enjoy the genre. However, when I said that I specifically said "trashy romance novels" not "romance novels". I was separating out the trash from the possibility of good books.
Just thought I'd point the out. Carry on.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Definition Of Literature- A book written by an author with as much artistic sense as Terrence Malick. The book usually deals with an universal concept such as death or love.
Think about that...
In the history of SF and Fantasy there are very FEW authors that are able to capture that magnitude of art on paper. Sure there's Tolkien, but really, how many SF authors take the time to describe the setting of each scene in their book? How many authors actually, (actually), develop their main characters? How many SF authors actually incorporate themes into their books? I may be 15 years old but even I can tell the difference between literature and works of fiction. Works of literature almost always deal with something that, no matter what period in time it is read, will be experienced, like death, racism, or true love. While many and most SF authors do use these concepts to develop their books, they either use them to develop the plot and not the characters, or they don't give those concepts as big as a role as they need to have. Instead, the concepts that SF writers repeatedly use are the ones that are right in front of them, most specifically the setting.
I just got finished reading 'To Kill A Mockingbird',which is possibly the worst book I have ever read. But I can see why people call it a work of literature. The book was written just before the Civil Rights Movement and it dealt with some pretty serious issues, all while keeping the characters believable (a trait that many SF books don't have) and developing them. I love SF and in fact other than Calvin & Hobbes I only read SF. But this isn't a matter of pride here, until somebody thinks of their SF book as a work of art, instead as some Science Thesis paper, I feel that SF and Literature will never integrate.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"A classic is something that everyone wants to have read, and nobody wants to read." -Mark Twain
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright you definition nazies, please give it up.
I am going to tell you about a little bit that Adam Carrola used to do alot back in the day on his radio show. He was always a fan of Pie. The food, not the number, and he always wanted to encourage people to serve more pie, and less cake at their parties. Pie he reasoned, is immensely better than cake, and the evidence is in the left-overs of any good party, where the cake will remain standing, and the pie dishes will be scraped clean. His attempts to convince the world of the general superiority of pie ran into some stumbling blocks however.
Every time he said pie was a superior idea to that of cake, someone would give him a line about how there was this one pie one time, and this cake that was really good, and everybody wanted the cake, and not the pie because it was awful. He would yell at these people and say, "OF course that doesn't prove anything! It was a fluke bad pie!" Then people would start getting into extremes to refute his argument about the general nature of desserts: What about a really fancy cake with chocolate and rose petals and 6 layers of creamy goodness? Of course you'd prefer that to an awful store-bought slice of apple pie.
Its true, but that isn't a valid argument; its like refuting the suposition that romance novels are ussually worthless by saying that there was this ONE this exceptional one that was REALLY good. Its arguing against a generalization by giving specific examples, it doesn't really work. As a result Carrolla was always yelling at people who served bad cake at their parties, and then defended them by saying that some cakes are really good. Where are the cakes? he would say, bring THOSE CAKES!!
When someone here earlier said that 1984 is a sci-fi novel, and that they couldn't see why good literature is somehow not "sci-fi" anymore, I was puzzled. I think it has to do with a certain spaztic compulsion (which is shockingly common among sci-fi enthusiasts ) to label and subdivide and define EVERYTHING, and make everybody know that your always right, because even when your wrong, its just because they other person didn't understand what you were talking about. I do it myself, its an effective way of deluding yourself. Myself, I don't really care if 1984 is a sci-fi book, its just a really good book. Why it has anything in common with Isaac Asimov or OSC, and not some non-sci-fi writers is beyond me entirely. I am the guy who wants to scream in everybody's face all the time about how stupid their characterizations ussually are. But I don't; I wouldn't have any friends that way.
Time and again I see these arguments here about "academia" and the "literati" and all this crap that is so much in people's heads it makes me want to laugh out loud. If you truly believe that as the "common man" or the grounded middle of the road majority, you are being oppressed and force-fed some cryptic ideology by those crazy lefties at the English dep. Pulease, don't make me laugh any harder. Its just plainly ridiculous, and it makes you all sound like a bunch of paranoids.
This was more of an organic rant of what is bugging me about this whole argument, take it as you will or not at all- I for one am going to go read a book, and not worry about who thinks its worth reading!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think there are two points to take into consideration with regards to this discussion - the discussion being whether or not some genre or another's works are considered valid literary works by professors or academics.
First, is OSC's take on the whole thing, which is that it doesn't matter one bit whether something is considered literature or not if you enjoy reading it. People who try to write "literature" (who often submit to the New Yorker and other such magazines) are missing the whole point, which should be to write interesting stories with engaging characters.
This is a completely valid point, and one that denies the power of labels such as "literature" or "pulp" or whatever. It also points out the elitism and arrogance of the "literati" who like to make divisions into what is and is not "worth reading."
The second point is on the other side of the fence.
Often students (like SoaPiNuReYe) dislike the books they are given in school to a great extent. Personally, I loathed Catcher in the Rye and the Scarlet Letter. The only books that are allowed to be taught as part of school curriculi are those that are considered "literature" - at least a vast majority of the time.
The book has to have some "literary value" in order for a school or university to adopt it as part of their teaching processes.
The question of "Why aren't there more books from the genres of science fiction or fantasy? Genres I like reading?" is important to ask. Perhaps if students were given books that had more engaging stories and plots, they would become more interested in reading and, overall, more literate.
So, you may scoff at those who wish to dissect and examine genre and the lasting impressions of written works and what they have in common, but such discussions are what drive English departments nationwide. And the, imho, irrational prejudice by those in the teaching community towards genres like science fiction and fantasy is unwarranted.
If nothing else, it is important to try to open people's eyes to new ideas and stories, and open their minds that a science fiction or fantasy book might be just as worth reading as anything else.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many authors actually, (actually), develop their main characters? How many SF authors actually incorporate themes into their books?
A lot more than you seem to think. I would take Ender or Bean over Gatsby or Holden any day of the week, personally, as better developed characters - certainly in better developed stories - and that's just using OSC as an example.
Go read 1984. Read Brave New World. Read Farenheit 451. Read some Octavia Butler. There are very heavy themes in these books that discuss the human condition, from politics and sociology down to gender and basic human development.
The themes of science fiction are no less great than those of "literary fiction" - SF authors just don't trip over themselves trying to be clever with symbolism, extended metaphor and other literary conventions. In my opinion, their work is better for it - focus is placed more on character and story.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Academic communities have a perfectly rational aversion to crappy literature. There happens to be ALOT of bad sci-fi, so it may seem like sci-fi gets written off. But if you assume, as I do, that every really valuable book is transcendent of an genre, then you begin to understand my point.
Like 1984, which someone here called sci-fi. I laughed at this because it reminded me that any really good book doesn't work inside a box labeled: "this is what to expect here." Alot of those "literati" idiots you're talking about are not anything to do with really good literature. Something my personal hero Douglas Adams once said is that you don't do art, that's just not right. You go and do what your interested in, and if someone comes along in a generation and calls it art, then fine, but that wasn't the goal at the time. If it was, then chances are it has little enduring value. The same is true, I think, of writing in a genre: if you aim so low as to "fit in" to a preformed audience, then your work is going to suffer.
This claim that there is some conspiracy in academia to "force" these crazy obstruse titles on everybody is just plain stupid. I say again, spend 8 years studying for a phd and you'll get into some things no-one has ever heard of before. Though that doesn't make it good or bad, you cannot expect an English prof to pick books that people will always like to read.
This reminds me of a lecture I had in a musicianship class the other day, when we were talking about "atonal" theory and serialism. Of course the teacher, like most academic composers, believed that serialism was something in the past, no-longer representative of the worldview that composers try to express. However he made the excellent point that the composers who wrote in that genre did it out of a deep conviction that this was truest possible expression of their world view. It wasn't pretty, it was ugly. But it was honest, and that was the goal.
My point? Sci-fi and all that goes into that culture can be just as dogmatic and opressive as hollywood, or a religion, or academia can be. People are after all people, and the instinct to dominate and rule and opress is ubiquitous. I just don't appreciate the lack of insight I consistently see in discussions about that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) on the subject, but to quote Bean, "You don't have to eat the entire turd to know it's not a crabcake."![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
