[ 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: 158 KB, 1600x1200, floating island.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2789186 No.2789186[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Why does /lit/ dislike the sci-fi/fantasy genres completely? I know that they tend not to be very "deep" in their philosophies, but does that mean it's impossible to have a meaningful fantasy novel? Why disregard every member of the genre due to a few bad popular ones?

I've been wanting to write fantasy for a while, but I also have a great desire to write prose. Is it possible to combine them? Do I have to choose? Would my bibliography be forever stained by a fantasy novel?

>> No.2789197

lots of us like genre. of course it's possible to have a meaningful fantasy novel. zelazny had great prose and he wrote fantasy. your bibliography won't be stained but in terms of publishing, you may find it hard to rebrand yourself as a lit writer.

>> No.2789199

>Would my bibliography be forever stained by a fantasy novel?

Yes. Just look at Harold Bloom.

>> No.2789208

>>2789186
>I've been wanting to write fantasy for a while, but I also have a great desire to write prose.

Just so you might know, "prose" doesn't mean "writing of literary merit," but rather essentially any writing that isn't verse, and without immediate structural form.

But as to what I suspect is your actual question, I'd really like to see someone take fantasy fiction and produce someone artistically substantial with it. Tolkien seemed to think the genre was capable of it—he wrote an essay on the subject: "On Fairy Stories."

Damned if I can find the thing, though.

>> No.2789206

His Dark Materials was fantasy, and I thought that was meaningful./

>> No.2789217

>>2789208
I wish I could, but to be honest I'm not sure I'm capable. I feel like I'd have to pick between either writing the adventure I've always wanted, and writing something meant to make a statement to the world.

Perhaps I'll try thinking of a way to mix them...

>> No.2789225

>>2789217

Ultimately just write the book you want to write. Getting published is a devilishly difficult and frustrating process as I understand it. Passion's the only think that's going to get you through it.

>> No.2789238

>>2789225
I guess that's good advice. I just don't want to regret it later.

>> No.2789239

Alice in Wonderland was a fantasy novel. Look where that is.

>> No.2789254

If you want to take fantasy and to something of literary significance with it, I might recommend reading Spenser's "The Faerie Queene" and the Medieval Romances it was in part emulating. Basically leapfrogged the entire fantasy genre, and he's doing all sorts of crazy allegorical shit with it.

>> No.2789274

Whenever you have to be specific about how things work, you lose any symbolic element.

Whenever you leave out details as to how things work, you lose any fantasy element.

That is the paradox.

>> No.2789277

>>2789217
Write what feels right. If you force yourself to write a novel that is not what you want to it be, it will be shit.

>> No.2789297
File: 112 KB, 519x640, walpapr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2789297

No matter what happens, the book industry and capital generally makes great demands on genre fiction. It effectively ghettoizes them into their own usually overlooked niche, and is sure to weed out most real literary merit out of them in favor of what will appeal to the masses. Take a look at the lurid, ridiculous paintings on most Tor books, or the sensationalist descriptions on the back, and you'll see what I'm talking about. When a science fiction or fantasy author "breaks out" into broader popularity, it seems to me as much of a fluke as it is the appeal of their prose, but I don't mean to be cynical.

>> No.2789311

>>2789274
>Whenever you leave out details as to how things work, you lose any fantasy element.

Spenser's Faerie Queene (1590-96) is in my opinion undeniably fantasy, while at the same time having far more literary merit than I suspect anything either of us will ever write. It's not particularly detailed, either—you'd never be able to make a map of fairy land or iron out the physiological differences between its inhabitants and those of earth—but its yet still all about knights rescuing princesses and defeating monsters and overcoming their own failings and flaws in the process.

But I'll grant it can be hard to straddle the line between achieving symbolic significance and maintaining the same conventions of fantasy fiction today.

>> No.2789336

One: many genre fans are stupid, or at least not sophisticated in literary terms, and lots of genre fiction is bad. Two: the academic literary establishment has long ignored genre fiction as a matter of course, and although this is rapidly changing, the kinds of /lit/ posters who merely regurgitate dogmatic opinions are rather behind the times.

Lots of 'genre' fiction is fucking ridiculously great, of course. In terms of prospects for publishing, the sci-fi ghetto is nowhere NEAR as bad as it used to be, even 20 or 30 years ago, but it still exists. But I wouldn't worry about it, if you're good enough people will eventually reclaim you (I'm going to do this with RA Lafferty. It's going to happen. Just wait 40 or 50 years and you'll see).

>> No.2789343

>>2789297
That's not really true, actually. One of the great merits of sf&f is that the genre is basically really comfortable with publishing some really weird shit, even if it's unlikely to have real economic prospects. So, yeah, the stuff that's popular has had the merit strained out of it, but there's a lot of really great science fiction and fantasy that hasn't. It tends to be less popular but who gives a toss about popularity?

>>2789311
It's not particularly hard, it's just that maintaining that balance makes mass popularity less likely. But look at Gene Wolfe, or M John Harrison, or RA Lafferty, or John Crowley (who now is crossing over into mainstream fiction, but it's definitely a matter of merit, not a fluke).

I don't know. I really love genre fiction and a lot of it is really great to me, and it seems like most people who comment on it are (perhaps understandably) only familiar with the surface forms of genre fiction and the most popular, widely-read manifestations of genre fiction. At least on /lit/.

>> No.2789350

>>2789343

Face it: given a choice between the Aeneid and the Lord of the Rings, you know what we'd choose.

>> No.2789352

What is the difference between genre fiction and regular fiction?

>> No.2789362

>>2789350
But Tolkien ends up on "Classic" lists all the time. Fantasy can be critically acclaimed, if not by /lit/.

>> No.2789365

>>2789350
You know, I honestly don't know. I like them both very much, and I'd be very hard-pressed to choose.

And in any case, I don't think that's particularly meaningful - any more meaningful than to say, "Given a choice between the Divine Comedy and Hemingway, you know what you'd choose. Ergo 20th century American literature is shit / worthless." I mean, even if I did think the Aeneid better, that's not really an argument that Lord of the Rings is bad. Just that it's not as good as the Aeneid. D'you see?

>>2789352
That's a surprisingly complicated questions. The most practically useful definition is: genre fiction is sold as genre fiction, and literature is not. If you care on a deeper level than that, there's a pretty substantial amount of academic work on the question; Darko Suvin is a pretty influential starting point.

>> No.2789370

>>2789352

There isn't. the difference being discussed is between genre fiction and literary fiction.

to oversimplify it, it's like the difference between art and entertainment. To put it in terms of cinema, most blockbusters would be "genre" films while the more artistic films that get nominated for best picture at the oscars would tend to be "literary" films.

It's a spectrum. On one end of it we have Flanagan's Wake, Ulysses, Moby Dick, and all of the other "classics" and books people associate with being "well read."

At the other end, we have Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey, Harry Potter, and all of those books that are actually popularly read in mainstream society.

>> No.2789379

>>2789370
Well, no. That's the distinction between art and entertainment in the medium of literature. And it's a useful and a good distinction, but it's actually a separate thing from the distinction between genre and non-genre (Actually I'd prefer different terminology, but w/e). Conflating them leads, for instance, to the consequence that a work of genre fiction like Ursula K Leguin's "The Left Hand Of Darkness" would have to be considered a more entertaining, less consequential work than John Grisham's "The Firm". And that... well, that's obviously fucking wrong.

So, I mean, the entertainment / art distinction is a good one to recognize, but it's not identical to the genre / mainstream distinction.

>> No.2789381

>>2789365

It was more an argument about our initial impressions and perceptions. Given a choice between a long lauded classic and a book that by all appearances seems to be simple & straightforward (albeit influential) genre fiction, we'd likely opt for the former.

Of course, having read both, the decision grows more complicated.

>> No.2789386

>>2789381
That's only really a comment on the prejudices and assumptions of serious-minded readers of literature today, though, and not a comment on the quality of the work itself.

I mean, I personally wouldn't share that reaction, because I've been reading genre fiction (and literary fiction) most of my life and I know that genre fiction is capable of greatness. I certainly agree that most literary readers would instinctively shy away from genre fiction, but that is not actually a negative comment on the quality of the field. Just a comment on the way readers are today.

>> No.2789388

>>2789379

I don't think there is a difference between genre/mainstream. All popular commercial fiction works within known genre conventions. Romance, horror, biography/autobiography, fantasy, science fiction—that's all genre fiction. Or, at least, the mainstream commercial implementations of those genres are.

The more interesting discussion is to be had between commercial and artistic works, which is what I refer to by genre/literary.

I'm just going off of the definition I was given by my literature textbook back in highschool. Wikipedia seems to be operating under the same presuppositions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre_fiction

>> No.2789391

>>2789388
>The more interesting discussion is to be had between commercial and artistic works, which is what I refer to by genre/literary.

I agree that's a more interesting discussion. I just think you're wrong to refer to it by "genre/literary", because I think that's a different distinction. I guess that's my point, I think otherwise we mostly agree.

>> No.2789393

>>2789386

Indeed. I was just commenting/elaborating on your remark here:

>it seems like most people who comment on it are (perhaps understandably) only familiar with the surface forms of genre fiction and the most popular, widely-read manifestations of genre fiction. At least on /lit/.

>> No.2789394

>>2789370

And yet it's not as simple as that, is it? To some extent, genre fiction is just that: fiction that falls within a certain genre, most genres usually being defined by their settings. So "Western" is a genre, and we consider "Westerns" genre fiction... but then what do you do with someone like Cormac McCarthy? Some of his novels are set in the American Old West. There are cowboys, Indians, gunslingers, and many other tropes of the Western genre. Yet at the same time, his books have excellent prose and have "deeper meaning," if you will. So some of his novels are both Westerns (members of the Western genre and thus genre fiction) and "literary."

This is what bothers me: the conflation of genres and "bad books." Many, many Westerns, sci-fi books, and fantasy novels are undeniably horrible, but it isn't the genre that makes them bad.

>> No.2789404

>>2789394
here.

>>2789379
beat me to the punch and

>>2789388
clarified your point nicely.

I also tend to think that the "genre vs. literary" distinction is misleading.

>> No.2789426

>>2789394

As I said at the time, i was oversimplifying it.

It really is best to look at it as a spectrum, in my opinion. On one hand, you have those works in which one struggles to find any deeper significance whatsoever, such as Twilight or 50 Shades of Grey, &c., and on the other you have those works which you are hard pressed to call anything more specific than "a novel", such as Flanagan's Wake, Ulysses, and Moby Dick.

But then you get these works that just fit in at the middle of the spectrum where everything's all fuzzy and indistinct. Jane Eyre's definitely a romance—it probably spawned the entire modern genre—but there's more to it than what you'll find many contemporary romances today. Lord of the Rings is a fantasy novel, but many find more substance in it than in the numerous novels it inspired.

Such works straddle the line between genre and literary fiction, and indeed in my opinion ultimately prove said line doesn't really exist. The spectrum's more a measurement of how easy the work in question is to categorize than anything else. I don't think Jane Eyre's nature as the progenitor of modern romance automatically renders it somehow a less legitimate as a work of art than Flanagan's Wake.

It may in fact actually be so, but not for that reason.

>> No.2789429
File: 10 KB, 126x117, 1297987873586s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2789429

>>2789404

I like how I'm being used to argue against myself.

(I'm >>2789370 & >>2789388 )

>> No.2789434

>>2789426

I agree. And to return to OP's question, I personally don't believe there's any reason why a fantasy or sci-fi novel could not also have great literary merit. In fact there are many examples of works that achieve this- as previously mentioned, Jane Eyre as a romance, much of Cormac McCarthy's work as westerns, and also books like Frankenstein which could be considered science fiction.

Now, as to whether such works could actually be published in today's market, I have no idea. I've never published. I do believe that such a novel could be written.

>> No.2789435

Man, I fucking LOVE sci fi. As far as philosophical insight goes, I think it's one of the richest genres. It's much more open than other genres, and though there is a lot of shitty sci fi out there, the good makes it all worth it. Nothing has blown my mind in the same way a good science fiction book has.

I haven't read too much fantasy since I was in high school, though. Good luck with that.

>> No.2789436

>>2789434
There are works with literary merits that have been published within the last thirty years that have been and are being sold as science fiction and fantasy. It can absolutely still happen.

>> No.2789438

>>2789434

There's even more contemporary examples of literary science fiction. All of the great dystopias (Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, etc.) ultimately qualify as science fiction.

>> No.2789440

>>2789429

I just meant you clarified your earlier posts well when you said:

>The more interesting discussion is to be had between commercial and artistic works, which is what I refer to by genre/literary.

>I'm just going off of the definition I was given by my literature textbook back in highschool. Wikipedia seems to be operating under the same presuppositions:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre_fiction

However, I personally don't like the fact that this distinction between "literary and genre" has come to be equated by many people with "good and bad."

>> No.2789445

>>2789440

That's really a question of who you ask. There's a lot of people out there who don't want any deeper meaning, who don't want to think about the stuff they read and watch.

I know I have a hard time getting my friends to watch Citizen Kane or read Moby Dick, at least.

>> No.2789446

>>2789435
There's a decent amount of great fantasy (altho honestly I don't care much about the distinction between science fiction and fantasy). Sadly underread, but it's out there.

>>2789438
I think, frankly, that science fiction can actually do better than that. I don't much care for the "great dystopian works". I think you're actually underrating speculative fiction.

>> No.2789450

>>2789446

Yeah but it's trendy at the moment with Bradbury's death.

>> No.2789462

>>2789436
>>2789435

I think you guys are right, and I personally think the sci-fi genre has great literary potential given the importance technology holds in the modern world. I just used Frankenstein as an example because it's pretty widely accepted as having literary merit (though I actually didn't enjoy reading it.)

>>2789438

I suppose you're right, although science and possible future technologies don't play as great a role in those books as in more "pure" sci-fi.

>> No.2789464

They hate sci-fi/fantasy because it sells a lot more books than the boring twaddle they indulge in. They want to pretend they are of the elite, smarter, or whatever, just because they can go into a bookshop an buy a book written by some dead guy. Sci-fi/Fanstasy is a genre that grows and changes, what they read is fixed and unmoving. They play it safe, never really being challenged, in any way, and they despise others who don't conform to their own self-importance.

Write whatever you want, and write it well. Don't listen to those toss-pots. Many are just bitter fools, jealous of any others success because the world has failed to realize their genius. They will never read you work anyway, but they will criticize it. Go write with the abandon and creativity they cannot find in themselves, but secretly want to possess.

>> No.2789466

>>2789445

As an example of my point, you can see >>2789464

>> No.2789471

I personally dislike sci-fi simply because it's boring as hell, I tried to read Ursulle le Guine and Nick Geyman but but it is just impossible, man, these books seemed more trivial than Oprah. Just poorly written dialogs and boring predictable action and tht's it. I can't understand why anyone would read something like this! Maybe you just like predictable things.

>> No.2789474

>>2789445

Well, you're right, I was just thinking in terms of /lit/ and some academic communities. Though /lit/ in general seems more openly hostile to genre fiction than even most professors I know.

>> No.2789477

>>2789466
I really don't mean to belabor a point but I just want to say again (in case you don't realize this, which you might) that art vs entertainment is not at all the same as or analogous to genre vs literature. I agree that dude is stupid, just want to make sure this is absolutely clear to everyone.

>>2789471
a++ post buddy

>> No.2789480

>>2789464

Hmm... what about literary fiction is 'fixed and unmoving'? I like Sci-Fi and the former equally, and I really have no idea where you're coming from.

>> No.2789482

>>2789474
>Though /lit/ in general seems more openly hostile to genre fiction than even most professors I know.

This is true & it's for reasons which I hope are perfectly clear to everyone because I can't be bothered to type them

>> No.2789489

Couldn't you use a pseudonym or something to publish the fantasy work? Not sure exactly how publishing works though.

>> No.2789495

Personally I enjoy sci-fi and fantasy and find a lot of it to have greater meaning beyond just being entertaining. That said, I also can attest that a lot-- and I really mean a lot-- of it is just formulaic shit. Yeah, it can be fun to read, but no boundaries are pushed.

Someone, somewhere, needs to write a fantasy book that pushes the boundaries not only of the genre, but of literature as a whole, for that is what all great works do. Then the genre won't be overlooked so much. Maybe I'll write it myself (lel)

>> No.2789497
File: 108 KB, 495x361, tumblr_l6vifdylOV1qc01tho1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2789497

No, Kepler; one of the first astronomers/astrologists who figured out three Universal laws of planets orbits also wrote one of the first science-fiction novels called Somnium, "the dream". In this book he discussed the perspective of a moon landing by humans. Science-fiction is not meaningless; it's insightful. It's an alternate world based on human imagination. What an author does to make a science-fiction novel is create a new world; and idealize what it would be like and how it would work. A brilliant sci-fi writer would not use human characters; because of the eminently large Universe and there's just such a high probability that on other biological planets, they have somehow evolved to live differently under alien circumstances; in a totally different environment; possibly not even carbon-based such as on Earth. There's so many possibilities and potential for this Earth to be something completely different than it is now, and that sentiment holds true due to the varying array of microbiological specimens scattered across the incomprehensibly large size of the cosmos.

>> No.2789499

>>2789489

Pseudonyms are a viable route. They're used extensively in many areas of publishing today. Robert Jordan is one, for example, and I know any male author writing romance tends to write under a female pseudonym.

>> No.2789500

>>2789495
>That said, I also can attest that a lot-- and I really mean a lot-- of it is just formulaic shit. Yeah, it can be fun to read, but no boundaries are pushed.

Sure. Nearly all intelligent readers of genre fiction acknowledge this. In fact, it was the great science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon who said "90% of science fiction is crap. 90% of everything is crap." (Also Theodore Sturgeon was a really great writer and yall should read him)

>Someone, somewhere, needs to write a fantasy book that pushes the boundaries not only of the genre, but of literature as a whole, for that is what all great works do. Then the genre won't be overlooked so much. Maybe I'll write it myself (lel)

They exist, very few people read them, I read them and then I get fanatical and weird about speculative fiction on /lit/. But, you know, go for it anyway, just try and read in the genre some before you do, there's nothing fucking worse than some dilettante trying to read science fiction without reading any

>> No.2789514

>>2789500

>They exist

Post some titles, brah. Of course your choices will likely be criticized, but by that point I will hopefully be reading.

On the fantasy side, I personally enjoyed The Prince of Nothing trilogy by R. Scott Bakker. It's got its flaws, but I enjoyed the questions raised by the character of Kellhus and how people interacted with him.

>> No.2789518

>>2789514
RA Lafferty. No one wrote books like RA Lafferty. Most underappreciated author I know of.

Gene Wolfe is pretty good too, and so is M John Harrison and JG Ballard and Tom Disch, but none of them are as original as Lafferty.