[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 22 KB, 228x348, Kingsley_Amis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1484531 No.1484531 [Reply] [Original]

>my face when /lit/ insists Science Fiction isn't Literature

>> No.1484542

Eh, I don't. I think some science fiction and fantasy has "literary merit."

>> No.1484541

>>1484531

his son is a prissy homo.

>> No.1484546

*sip*

>> No.1484577

Look, here's the thing:
Science fiction is literature. It often contains interesting ideas and uses the science aspect of fiction to push the envelope of concepts to bring them to light.
The futuristic settings and all sorts of things are used as a vehicle, just like any other work. Fantasy has this same deal.
The problem is that the vehicle is fucking cheesy.
It's cheesy as hell, it became hackneyed a long time ago, the best of the best of Science Fiction were the best of the best because they took 2 roads with it:
Keep this schtick factor to a bare minimum and present the story and characters with the best possible solemnity and grace. You have to trudge through some of the gimmick and get to the meat of the stuff, or
Revel in the cheesiness and make statements through and about it. Readers don't trudge through it, they're attracted to it, they revel in it because the author made their enjoyment contagious through the writing.

The rest of the rest are what's floating around and giving Sci-Fi a bad name, because they quite simply cannot do either one of these things effectively. The result is that the genre is full of a bunch of trite bullshit, and to make matters worse, the readers have trouble discerning between all of these, and hold up some gimmick-artist up with the ones who did their damndest to make sci-fi not a collection of gimmicks but a use of elements to create themes.

At the end of the day, science fiction gets ridicule because it's comparitively new, it has to be challenged, and it hasn't risen to the challenge much at all. It's the new weird kid at school and it bloodied a couple of noses a long time ago, but it keeps sitting in the corner playing with dolls and talking to itself during class, and none of the other kids are much impressed with that.

>> No.1484597

>>1484531

Wait /lit/ doesnt like science fiction? Wow this board is more retard strong than i thought.

Alastair Reynolds /thread

>> No.1484602

>>1484597
Some of us really really like science fiction

there is a minor group who hates on it & dismisses it out of hand. also dismisses any SF fan as NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERDS. largely trolling, i think, but the sentiment certainly exists.

>> No.1484608

>>1484577
>The result is that the genre is full of a bunch of trite bullshit, and to make matters worse, the readers have trouble discerning between all of these,

I think this is really the worst problem with SF

there's this stunning lack of critical standards on the part of people who read science fiction that really astounds me, and worries me

if you read science fiction, i beg you: read outside science fiction, and really think about what you read and what makes it good and what it means to be good.

>> No.1484615

>>1484577
> comparatively new
> to what?
> To greek literature since science fiction is 600 years old
> oh ok, I guess Hemingway is comparatively new too then. Why do we hate on sci-fi fantasy so much?
> because ....because....shut up fantasy fag

This is the reason I don't like /lit/ snobs they actually think certain literary forms are newer than others.

However you have a point. Many fantasy sci-fi novelists fall into the dreadful pattern of bad writing and cannot see past the coolest new gadget/wizard spell they created. That does not give /lit/ carte blanche to criticize every fantasy sci-fi book, only the ones they read. /lit/ would be surprised to learn there are good stories in both categories being written today.

And no wheel of Time is not one of those stories

>> No.1484626

>>1484608

The worst thing about it is how some people think Sci Fi and fantasy are the same fucking thing.

No sci fi does NOT have orcs and dragons and gay ass elves, godamn bookstore why are they in the same section!?!?!

>> No.1484630

>>1484541
Watching porn with Martin never did anything for Christopher. He found it very difficult to get aroused around anyone else, which probably accounted for his lack of a sex life. However seeing as Martin was already reaching for a pillow to put over his crotch, he didn’t appear to have that problem. Martin needed to get out more.

Christopher watched Martin’s eyes glaze over, and his breath become a little louder. Perhaps the porn wasn’t doing anything for Christopher, but Martin certainly was. So much for not getting aroused around other people. Christopher turned his attention away from the muggle computer screen and towards his best friend.

About 30 minutes into the movie, Martin turned to Christopher. “Mate, I have to touch myself or I’m going to go crazy.”

“I don’t mind.” He really didn’t.

Christopher watched out of the corner of his eye as Martin snaked his hand down his pants. The shaky breath that emerged from his friend’s lips was enough to give Christopher a rock hard erection instantly. This was definitely bad news.

>> No.1484633

>>1484626

Wow your one of the retards that think sci fi and fantasy are the same things.

>> No.1484639

It obviously depend on the work on question.
The Invention of Morel: Good sci fi.
Dune: Horrible piece of trash.

>> No.1484642

>>1484626
Because those are surface elements and your focus on them implies that you're kinda devoted to thinking on a fairly superficial level. And they actually turn out (1) to share a literary sensibility involving alterity and generally to share a lot of the same themes and viewpoints and modes of thinking about the world (2) to a very large extent they share a fanbase, a readership, and an authorship. if you are a fantasy fan, odds are, you are a SF fan, to some extent.

I'm as big an SF/F fan as anyone, and they belong together.

>> No.1484663

>>1484615
>>1484608
You guys misunderstand me if you think I'm condemning sci-fi.
I like it. Some of it. There are some fantastic writers of it. They're the ones who (I think) did exactly what I said they did, they made one of two choices with their works:

>Keep this schtick factor to a bare minimum and present the story and characters with the best possible solemnity and grace. You have to trudge through some of the gimmick and get to the meat of the stuff,
Example: Isaac Asimov, obviously. Clifford D. Simak. Bradbury. Philip K. Dick.

>Revel in the cheesiness and make statements through and about it. Readers don't trudge through it, they're attracted to it, they revel in it because the author made their enjoyment contagious through the writing.
Example: Harlan Ellison or Robert Heinlein (Heinlein was great at doing both of these, imo, he would pick one or the other)

And yeah, fine, it's 600 years old. You know that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the genre that has existed for about a century or so as it progressed into a niche, via Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, et al. to the Space Opera novelists like E.E. Doc Smith then to the Golden Age writers up to now. I grew up reading a shitload of science fiction, and still pick up a sci-fi book every great once in awhile.

My point has more to do with the fact that it has a stigma attached to it, and that some people do a very, very bad job at combating the stigma.

>> No.1484676

>sci-fi and fantasy fans

>forever alone

>> No.1484681

>>1484615
As someone who loves Wheel of Time, I think the important thing is to recognize it for what it is - it's fundamentally mainstream genre fantasy, not a great work of art. It's meant to be entertaining and it succeeds. Everything on top of that is gravy (and there is some of it in WoT, although it's not the primary function). And this goes back to what I was saying about critical standards: people need to be able to recognize this distinction.

>>1484663
I'm >>1484608

I absolutely agree with you, I was just adding on

btw Norman Spinrad draws a distinction that I think is generally useful in thinking about sci-fi: you need to think about science fiction in a literary sense, in a marketing or genre sense, and in a cultural sense, that is, as a living fandom culutre. He calls these respectively (I believe) science fiction, SF, and sci-fi.

>> No.1484682

>>1484676

nerdrage in 3...2....1...

>> No.1484698

>>1484682
At least when a nerd rages you know he won't bring any friends to the fight.

>> No.1484701

>>1484698
daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn

>> No.1484763

>>1484663
sorry I was taking it to the next level of criticism from the /lit/ board which is why I avoided the /you/ statements

Still that you don't recognize that it is not a literary progression from 1870 - 2011 is why I find your view problematic. It is a literary progression from roughly 1470-2011 (I might go back farther there were some egyptian writers described by Josephus who would fit sci-fi standards)

myopic literary critics in all their wisdom have decided that one novel is genre while calling classic a novel of similar style only twenty years older. Why is Arabian nights or decameron better than Verne or Asimov? All that's changed is setting and modernization of the language. Yes you could probably argue that the decameron is better written (it's not) or that since there are no spaceships 1001 is not sci-fi, but we are at the time period where Miller or Howard was describing in their sci-fi does that make theirs no longer sci-fi? Of course not .so why isn't 1001 sci fi for their time period?
It's because some literary critic pushed divisions into fiction retail that genre exists. We've only seen the modern category of Sci-fi and fantasy for the last 50 years, but the genre writers by your assertion predate that dictum. At that point before random division you have two types of literature the pulp fiction era and serious literature. Although they were copied in Pulp many of the early sci-fi fantasy standard bearers were strictly fiction. (I won't include children's lit among either group even though I know it's a third category)

>> No.1484769

>>1484763
I would feel extremely uneasy about calling anything more than 100 years old science fiction or fantasy, and certainly anything before Frankenstein I would straight up disagree with you on

Science fiction and fantasy as a distinct genre or culture certainly didn't exist before Verne and Wells. As a literary grouping, as a group of works with a certain mode of engaging with the world, I don't think you can argue that this mode of looking at the world exists before 1818 at the earliest. There are related things earlier, but still with fundamental differences (one reason for this has to do with the development of the scientific worldview & industrialism)

>> No.1484771

Don't forget Lucian's Verae Historiae!

A lot of sci-fi is pulp--and there's nothing wrong with pulp if you've got a post-modern sensibility. But I do tend to fall for literary writing more, and I find cyberpunk fits the bill for socially-conscious, fascinating speculation. For quality of writing, I think James Tiptree, Jr. could hold her/his own with any of the old dead people I read in my field.

>> No.1484818

Good Science Fiction: Pushing Ice
Bad Science Fiction: Honor Harrington

Good Fantasy: The Burning Land, Song of Ice and Fire (WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS)
Bad Fantasy: Anything with Drizz't

>> No.1484860

>>1484769
that's my point. Don't be generic and fall in the genre trap. Frankenstein isn't/is fantasy. Who decides that? Ask thirteen lit crit's if frankenstein is fantasy and you'll get three divided answers yes no and maybe. More of them will say no because it's recognized lit. But the question remains, recognized by whom?

Have you ever read 1001 arabian nights it most certainly is fantasy. It was written in a country that didn''t believe in most of the mystical creatures discussed in the book. We treat it as mythology despite being fiction and assume that the readers at the time believed in much of the mythos, little realizing that they were a much more advanced culture than credited. Yes some are folk tales but many have no prior place in history they are fictional stories created by the islamic culture of the period. And certainly Cyrano de Bergerac wrote in The States and Empires of the Sun a mixture of sci-fi/fantasy there's little else you could call his work but sci fantasy. That lit crits pretend it isn't sci-fi is astounding.

>> No.1484887

>>1484860
>>1484860

People talk shit about sci-fi because it is shitty.

Deal with it.

>> No.1484911

>>1484642
I fundamentally agree with you, yet I find that I read and am interested in science fiction but not fantasy. This is probably because I superficially enjoy the trappings of science fiction, but not those of fantasy.

Anyway, I think that science fiction and fantasy belong together under the banner of speculative fiction. I suppose things like alt-history would fit there too.

>> No.1484925

>>1484911
>I think that science fiction and fantasy belong together under the banner of speculative fiction
o rly? What's so speculative about "Fucking dragon riders torching shit up in their mithril armors jesuschrist!!!1"?

It's only speculation if you take some care to think about the consequences of your introduced elements. Not even all of SF live up to this criterium.

>> No.1484946

>>1484925
>Adjective: speculative
>2. Not based on fact or investigation

>o rly? What's so speculative about "Fucking dragon riders torching shit up in their mithril armors jesuschrist!!!1"?

The fact that it's not based on fact or investigation.

I offer that response despite there being nothing speculative about your quote, though I'm parsing your post through my Fucktard-to-English translator to try and infer your meaning.

>> No.1484952

>>1484946
I am also misusing the word "parsing".

>nor problam
Glad to hear it, Captcha. Thanks.

>> No.1484975

>>1484887
Stop quoting your literary critic professors and use your own cranium for once. how many sci fi novels have you read? None. Your basis then is empty. Even if you read 2000 you can't say with certainty that all are bad because in the last year alone there were 2000 sci-fi book published. And I doubt you've done more than glance at the titles of any book except maybe the clif notes version of the books your elitist friends discuss when they are trying to act cool.

you don't look cool, you're boring. You are a literary leech, a promethean snake, unable to do anything but suck until you've taken all the drivel your friends spout and then turn around and pretend that you've discovered fire. We all know you do it to meet girls, and the girls you chose are easily fooled by the snoobish fakery you throw at them. Until they realize exactly what it is. For once be a mensch and speak from a place of actual knowledge, instead of a useless piece of lit crit doppleganger

>> No.1484979

>>1484946
Oh yeah, well fuck your dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speculative
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speculation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speculating

>Not based on fact or investigation
Speculative is not synonymous to imaginative, fictitious, fabulous or fantastical. Cunt.

>> No.1485003

>>1484887

Wow /lit/ your so godamned dumb, just because some sci fi sucks doesnt mean it all does.

Thats exactly like saying all vampire books suck because Twilight sucks.

>> No.1485008

>>1485003
>vampire books suck
PUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!

>> No.1485010

Science Fiction can be considered literature if the fantasy elements are used as a literary device and not just a mechanism of escapism. Like Vonnegut is definitely literature and he uses Sci-Fi to create satirical commentary.

>> No.1485016

>>1484975
>We all know you do it to meet girls, and the girls you chose are easily fooled by the snoobish fakery you throw at them.
well know we all know ur true colors. mad because you can't get sex

>> No.1485021

Anything written that came from a human imagination is literature.

>> No.1485025

GODDAMMIT YOU FAGGOTS LEARN HOW TO USE CAPITAL LETTERS

>> No.1485028

funny how the majority of /lit/ actually loves sci fi and is fuckin pissed at the one or two who say it sucks

>> No.1485040

they're the same people who get really upset when they find out that some people don't like harry potter

>> No.1485047

>>1485016
> 12 year olds
> they still think people believe them when they pretend they are having sex and the other guy isn't

thank you for proving my point though. quite literally. If i ever want to laugh at someone please post in /lit/ again

>> No.1485057

>>1485025
> hi my name is langston hughes. You may know me from such works as the ways of white folks or more likely for my disdain of capital letters

Get over it buddy, it's the internet. Even the news forgets them

(and they hate periods too)

>> No.1485065

I often read Conan next to my fireplace and I feel litterarily powerful.

>> No.1485074
File: 22 KB, 360x293, avclub_review314.article.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1485074

Some of the finest literature that has ever been written has been Science Fiction or Fantasy.

>> No.1485082

Sometimes you make me very depressed /lit/.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SciFiGhetto

>> No.1485185

>>1485074
It may or may not be but either way it wasn't written by Arthur Clarke, Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov

>> No.1485187

>>1485047
well I"m glad you got a laugh out of it, that was kind of the intent?

>> No.1485204

I took a class on Kurt Vonnegut last semester. At one point the subject of science fiction vs. literature came up and the professor actually said completely seriously "I've never read any, but I know that it's all just written for preadolescent boys." He's the head of the English department at my school and I think shares the views of most of the literary community.

Funnily enough, Kurt Vonnegut himself wrote about the division between science fiction and literature. If you believe him, in the end it's purely a community construct on both ends: sci-fi has created a persecution complex and literature refuses to accept them into their own fraternity.

>> No.1485223

>>1485204
wait, a teacher that was teaching about a science-fiction writer said that he'd never read science-fiction? or did he say that literature was for pre-adolescent boys?

>> No.1485225

>>1485010
This is fairly correct. To be honest, the worst of both genres is just the mindless escapism, and a lot of science fiction and fantasy fans really need that mindless escapism, meaning more of it is produced.

I think it's interesing the way most science fiction authors seem to swap language for plot. I am a huge fan of science fiction, but if I haven't read a science fiction novel in a while and start a new one, the first chapter is usually me screwing up my face at the language. There are plenty of exceptions to this though, eg Late Phillip K Dick, but he'd had so much practice at this point he could swap narrators mid sentence confidently

>> No.1485233

>>1485223

It's debatable whether Vonnegut wrote sci-fi (a lot of his later stuff and short fiction definitely isn't). Vonnegut disliked being lumped in with the science fiction community due to Player Piano/Sirens of Titan and later Cat's Cradle.

>> No.1485237

>>1485225
I always find it funny when people bring up escapism. Because, well, all fiction genres have escapist writers in them. Just because you read the books from those genres that aren't there to envelope you in different situation that you'd find more appealing, doesn't mean they aren't there.

>> No.1485242

>>1485233
it's not debatable that he wrote sci-fi, he wrote other things too, but he did write at least a few books that took place in a fictional world where different technology and technological processes were present. things like that bother me when this discussion comes up, you try to posit a few authors that you know the other person likes, and they try to say how that author isn't of that genre because they can come up with arbitrary reasons.

>> No.1485246

>>1485242

Oh, I love sci-fi and think most of Vonnegut's best work was his science fiction. I was responding to him being called a "science fiction writer" when he himself would take issue with the term. I also posted >>1485204 if that clears up anything. He is definitely someone who wrote science fiction.

>> No.1485251

>>1485246
oh, I understand. I was merely stating that he is a science-fiction writer because he wrote science-fiction, he is also a literary-fiction writer because he wrote literary fiction. I don't think that any writer should be limited to the view of one genre, and if they are then they probably aren't going to be able to actualize a lot of what they could do with their work.

>> No.1485261
File: 53 KB, 378x226, gauld[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1485261

u just jelly

>> No.1485263

>>1484860
Sorry bro, but people did and do believe in djinnis. I have an uncle who swears he was married to one and she drowned his children. Religious creatures aren't fantasy just because not everyone believes them.

>> No.1485266

>>1485021

This.

Fuck Harold Bloom and his circle-jerk of living corpses (do they count as sci-fi/fantasy?) who believe in closed literature.

>> No.1485301

>>1485266
what in the fuck are you talking about. have you even read anything by harold bloom?