/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3737342]

This prejudice, patronization and general looking down upon science fiction readers needs to stop.

Science fiction has its good and bad writers, just like any other genre.

The top sci-fi writers are on par with ANY "great" name in literature you can think of.

>implying Vernor Vinge, Greg Egan, Asimov and Clark are in any way, shape or form inferior to Kafka, Joyce, Hemingway and Chekhov

They are not.

Tell me one reason why science fiction is inferior. That's right, you can't.
Story, characterization, prose, etc. are all on par.

It is high time /lit/ dealt with this.

[Anonymous No.3737349]

i mean the focus on plot generally detracts from other elements of the work
also asimov's characterization is godawful
and while most sci-fi authors have pretty simple, straightforward prose, i don't really think it compares to most literary authors.

[Anonymous No.3737351]

SF is my favorite genre, bro. Just saying.

[Anonymous No.3737363]

I haven't read Vinge or Egan, but Asimov and Clarke are awful. You could've at least used Lem or Dick or Stapledon as your examples.

[Anonymous No.3737367]

>>3737349
>i mean the focus on plot generally detracts from other elements of the work

The message is still there (whatever that may be for you). The good writing and excellent ideas are still there. They are just wrapped in a sweet outer shell.

>also asimov's characterization is godawful

Not always. It's not his strength, but he can do it.

>and while most sci-fi authors have pretty simple, straightforward prose, i don't really think it compares to most literary authors.
>most

The top ones do compare.

[Anonymous No.3737372]

>>3737351
Good to hear! I miss the sci-fi recommendation threads we once had.

>>3737363
See how many others you managed to mention? On a short notice. That proves my point.

[Anonymous No.3737374]

>>3737363
>Asimov and Clarke are awful

Really now? Do i have to go over trolling 101 again?

[Anonymous No.3737377]

Can't we just have an eternal sci-fi thread? I mean like how /sp/ has an Eternal Arsenal thread or /fa/ has an eternal WAYWT thread. This thread is made at least 5x/day 7 days/wk

[Anonymous No.3737378]

>>3737367
i've read a pretty healthy quantity of sci-fi and i have to say i've never seen someone who can match joyce or hemingway in prose or making any sort of statement.
i do enjoy sci-fi, don't get me wrong, but i think it serves a sort of different purpose than "literature"
like asimov was for sure a genius and the way he created and solved problems is really interesting but i don't think he matches up with like western canon type authors in terms of actual writing

[Anonymous No.3737379]

Clarke and Asimov couldn't write their way out of a paper bag. Relatively interesting ideas-men, but as literature it's pretty poor stuff.

[Anonymous No.3737380]

>>3737342
>Story, characterization, prose, etc. are all on par.
But they're not.

[Anonymous No.3737382]

>>3737349
maybe in the examples you're juggling, but from my experience, you seem to be dismissing the genre through blanket statements. the worst examples of SF i've come across would agree with your first sentence, but none of the nicer ones. crack open ender's game, summer queen, and a host of others for some pretty dandy characterization. also i get where you're going with the straightforward prose. there are a ton of exceptions but in general, SF is around to play with concepts of what could be, and in this it's as rich as they come. for example, while a lit novel might play with developing characters (metamorphosis, the stranger, etc) SF's main kick is to play with societies and cultures. The full-spectrum characterizations's been there all along, bro. It's a characterization of peoples and potentials. (Think the Time Machine-- morlocks and Eloi.)

[Anonymous No.3737388]

>>3737378
...and why is his style worse than theirs?

[Anonymous No.3737393]

>implying Assimov is any good at all

[Anonymous No.3737394]

>>3737382
>characters (metamorphosis, the stranger, etc)
I think it's telling that your two examples are short novel(la)s that you probably read in translation.

[Anonymous No.3737404]

>>3737393
Yes he is. Next?

[Anonymous No.3737407]

>>3737377
OP here

I'll make one later. I have always wanted to make one, but never felt there would be many people for it. Lets see how it goes. I'll post a link here (later tho, no need to clog up the board).

[Anonymous No.3737411]

>>3737404
If he was a budding author in modern times he wouldn't even have gotten through a high school English class. You and others like him because he was a pioneer in his genre.

Pic related, someone with actual sci-fi talent.

[Anonymous No.3737415]

>asimov
>bad

Pick one and only one. What is wrong with you people?

[Anonymous No.3737416]

>>3737388
i'm not saying his style is necessarily worse, just that he's not trying to achieve the same goal as those authors. he's definitely articulate, but he's writing primarily to get a story across, which means he's not focusing on the kind of universal expression you see in say joyce or faulkner or the disguised depth you see in hemingway.
the guy's written some incredible stuff, like the gods themselves or the foundation trilogy, but in all his works he sets up a logically consistent universe, creates some problems to solve, then has his characters solve them.
i think it's sort of difficult to compare sci-fi to literary fiction, but the latter generally has more of an artistic touch which i think divides great literature from good books

[Anonymous No.3737419]

>>3737411
Portrait Three? What a strange family name.

[Anonymous No.3737425]

>>3737377
>>3737407
Considering the ubiquity and constant popularity of threads like this, I would estimate at least 10% of the /lit/ population are sci-fi fans

[Anonymous No.3737422]

>>3737415
Can you provide an argument in defense of Asimov?

[Anonymous No.3737431]

>>3737419
>2013
>not knowing Brian Aldiss
ishiggydiggydoo

[Anonymous No.3737441]

>>3737416
>>3737416
>i'm not saying his style is necessarily worse, just that he's not trying to achieve the same goal as those authors.

But he, and other sci-fi authors, are looked down upon as evidenced by the response in this very thread.

>i think it's sort of difficult to compare sci-fi to literary fiction, but the latter generally has more of an artistic touch

Is this just a case of comparing two essentially different mediums?

If both are good in their own way then why the condescension?

[Anonymous No.3737442]

>>3737394
what do you mean? you can give other examples if you want. just threw down two that deal with examining characters.
SF and lit both seem to examine the human condition. just through different approaches.
Lit focuses mostly through following individual's lives, (more similar to our own experience of muddling through,) and providing insights by way of their experiences. whereas SF examines, through introducing new concepts and ideas (as our main transport, rather than through lit's individuals,) the human condition in time, or, an examination of the way our society's structured at present, vs. where the potentials created by our forward momentum might take us, with regards to how we're developing now.

i'd never put down one genre to boost another. lit and sci-fi are both my antidrug. there are no shit genres. you'll find disappointment and genius in every genre, i think. cheers, anon.

[Anonymous No.3737445]

>>3737425
So 10 people?

[Anonymous No.3737450]

>>3737422
Sure, you have to provide something to defend from first, though.

[Anonymous No.3737453]

>>3737441
i mean a lot of c/lit/s are elitists in general so sci-fi's just one more thing to have a dick measuring contest over
look at the archive, half the threads are circlejerks

[Anonymous No.3737462]

>>3737342
Brave New World is not looked down on. 1984 and A Clockwork Orange aren't looked down on more than some "literary" works. Most scifi is looked down on because most scifi is bad.

[Anonymous No.3737473]

>>3737450
He is not a good writer. His prose are basic, he is weak on characterization. Now you post examples of his writing that prove me wrong if you can.

[Anonymous No.3737479]

There is a quote form the brothers Strugatsky that I really, really like and always put forward in such discussions. Not word for word, but whatever/

"Science fiction is way to look at today's issues from tomorrow's point of view, thus avoiding the uncomfortable questions that may arise and freeing our mind from them, leaving it open to new concepts and ideas, furthering our development as human beings."

Nothing more to say really.

[Anonymous No.3737489]

>>3737473
Let me save some typing by posting this http://www.editoreric.com/greatlit/authors/Asimov.html

[Anonymous No.3737496]

>>3737479
On and something else they said: "science fiction is an element of the intelligent.".

AKA stupid people pls go

[Anonymous No.3737498]

Considering A Fire Upon the Deep is probably the worst book I've ever read, it's apparent your opinion of what constitutes good literature is completely fucking worthless.

Also, making stupid, whiny, shit threads like this doesn't help your case.

[Anonymous No.3737519]

SyFy authors with good prose:

Frank Herbert motherfuckers, do you speak it?
J. G. Ballard
Phillip K. Dick
Stephen King
Ray Bradbury
Gene Wolfe
Alistair Reynolds
Charles Stross

[Anonymous No.3737523]

>>3737498
>Considering A Fire Upon the Deep is probably the worst book I've ever read, it's apparent your opinion of what constitutes good literature is completely fucking worthless.

Somehow your opinion is more important than OP's? What?
Somehow Vinge is a bad author, because you didn't like one of his books? What?

Fire Upon The Deep is a masterpiece you maggot.

>Also, making stupid, whiny, shit threads like this doesn't help your case.

It's suits the stupid, whiny and shit people we have on /lit/ pretty good, though.

[Anonymous No.3737529]

>>3737519
thread\

Anymore arguments form the "sci-fi is shit" crowd?

[Anonymous No.3737530]

>>3737519

If you think Frank Herbert or PKD have good prose, you don't know what prose is.

[Anonymous No.3737531]

>>3737519
Frank Herbert's prose is terrible. So much telling, so little showing.

[Anonymous No.3737537]

>>3737530
>>3737531
samefag

[Anonymous No.3737532]

>>3737530
Have you read their works or are you talking out of your ass tripfag?

[Anonymous No.3737535]

SyFy authors with bad prose:

Frank Herbert motherfuckers, do you speak it?
J. G. Ballard
Phillip K. Dick
Stephen King
Ray Bradbury
Gene Wolfe
Alistair Reynolds
Charles Stross

Wow such good discussion.

[Anonymous No.3737539]

>>3737535
Well someone asked or implied there were no such authors, so I provided a list. Isn't that how discussions work?

[Anonymous No.3737543]

>>3737539
No they're bad.

[Anonymous No.3737547]

>>3737537
Nah. I actually enjoyed Dune, but the prose is clearly the weakest part of it. The clumsily handled exposition in the first one hundred or so pages nearly made me put it down and never pick it up again. Even George Martin has more craftsmanship than Herbert.

[Anonymous No.3737550]

>>3737547
sci-fi authors with good prose:

George R.R. Marting

[Anonymous No.3737552]

Science Fiction is probably my favorite genre too, but other people looking down on the genre is understandable because of threads like this. There are excellent sci-fi writers out there, like Wolfe, Lafferty, Le Guin, Herbert, and Walter Miller, but these aren't what sci-fi fans tend to read or talk about. Instead fans list Asimov with reverence, despite the fact that he mostly wrote pulp and only rarely wrote anything that could be called good. Nevertheless sci-fi fans like OP compare him to Hemingway and Kafka. Clarke was also a terrible writer, with often nonsensical new-age ideas thrown in at random at the expense of actual characterization. PKD is pointed to as a writer of genuine literary merit when in fact his prose range from passable to bad, and of the pile of books he wrote only a single one approaches greatness. Haldeman and Scalzi are considered solid by sci-fi standards, when honestly their work is trash.

As long as sci-fi fans put crap on a pedestal people will look down on the genre. As long as sci-fi fans argue that mediocre genre writers who wrote in bare-bones style for the purpose of plot alone are equal to the best prose authors ever to put pen to page, those fans will be ridiculed. Fans might be angry, but they bring it on themselves.

[Anonymous No.3737555]

>>3737445
Considering those ten appear to be more vocal than the other 90, it would only make sense to create an Eternal Sci-Fi thread so that these threads do not have to be constantly remade.

Organization is the key for any minoritie's voice to be heard

[Anonymous No.3737560]

Any Sci-Fi vs Lit Fic debate is created by trolls and argumentative bastards. The best way to troll any board is to find a topic that can divide a board into two roughly equal parts and proceed to shit all over one of them. The other will retaliate and soon enough you have yourselves a shitstorm.

[Anonymous No.3737564]

Sturgeon's Law: 90% of anything is crap.

[Anonymous No.3737563]

>>3737523

Your post is nonsense. Vinge is a bad author because he can't write. It has nothing to do with me and everything to do with the author.

My opinion is more important than OP's because I'm not a 13 year old trying to compare a third rate pulp writer to an author like Chekhov. Honestly, this thread is a fucking joke.

[Anonymous No.3737562]

>>3737552
>Nevertheless sci-fi fans like OP compare him <Asimov> to Hemingway and Kafka.

Not his prose, though.

I'd put Alistair Reynolds' prose against Kafka's anytime.

[Anonymous No.3737568]

>>3737562
I wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.3737570]

>>3737563
>Vernor Vinge
>third rate pulp writer

Now I know you are talking out of your ass mate. No one would have put those two in one sentence otherwise.

[Anonymous No.3737576]

>>3737568
That's because you are a hipster pre-teen that has not touched quality science fiction, but jumps on what /lit/ tells him is "proper" reads and continues to read them without understanding a thing.

How am I doing so far?

[Anonymous No.3737579]

>>3737564
Literature has already been filtered somewhat though, so long as it isn't contemporary. 90% of the original books might be bad, but if people still read it 20 years later the chances it doesn't suck go way up. In comparison the standards in terms of writing are lower for sci-fi than for most other types of books, so I'd probably bump it up to 95% crap.

[Anonymous No.3737580]

>>3737552
>who wrote in bare-bones style for the purpose of plot alone are equal to the best prose authors ever to put pen to page

What's wrong with plot?

If you read for prose, why bother reading anything else but poetry?
Now that's an art in which wordcrafting is treated as an absolute.

I'm not sure I understand how /lit/ criticizes good and bad books.

[Anonymous No.3737582]

>>3737579
That implies Tolkien is good.

[Anonymous No.3737585]

>>3737342
>sci fi
>lit
pick one

[Anonymous No.3737583]

>>3737580
>If you read for prose, why bother reading anything else but poetry?

lol

[Anonymous No.3737589]

>>3737579
> if people still read it 20 years later

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

[Anonymous No.3737586]

>>3737579

I can't decide if the growth of fandoms is a real shitty thing or if I just have sour grapes for not being an autistic girl and being in one. I will agree with you that it distorts the market of ideas in SF when any book with Star Trek on the cover, no matter how shitty, will make sales.

(ST just as an example)

[Anonymous No.3737590]

>>3737580
>If you read for prose, why bother reading anything else but poetry?
I don't think you know what prose is.

[Anonymous No.3737592]

>>3737583
I know prose is theoretically opposed to poetry, but there's a lot of "free" poetry which has the same structure as "prose".

I don't see the point of obsessing over style really.

[Anonymous No.3737595]

>>3737576
I'm non-hipster, mid twenties, and I have read both Reynolds and Kafka. I assume you read Kafka in translation, not in the original Germain, but even so you should realize that Kafka is trying to evoke a type of mood with his prose that Reynolds is obviously not. Kafka evoked that mood so well that today we have the phrase "Kafkaesque," while we don't call things Reynoldsian now do we? Analyzing each for what they try to accomplish Kafka's writing is clearly superior. Comparing them head-to-head misses the point.

You're not doing that well so far.

[Anonymous No.3737597]

>>3737582
How so?

[Anonymous No.3737601]

>>3737342
>Asimov
>Vinge
>Clark
>good sci-fi writers at all, let alone on par with Joyce

Okie Dokie Timmy, you have fun. It's your bedtime soon, don't stay up too late playing with 4chan!

[Anonymous No.3737607]

>>3737580
>I'm not sure I understand how /lit/ criticizes good and bad books.

Here mate, let me help you with this handy chart I made.

[Anonymous No.3737609]

>>3737592
Basically I like a greentext story with a good plot better than a length text about nothing with a good style.

I'm probably a pleb.

[Anonymous No.3737610]

>>3737552
Fantasy suffers from the same problem, really. It's why you just can't have a decent spec fic thread on /lit/--either you it's ruined by condescending elitists or it's ruined by "fans" discussing trash.

[Anonymous No.3737613]

>>3737595
>you should realize that Kafka is trying to evoke a type of mood with his prose that Reynolds is obviously not.

Reynolds evokes a type of mood of its own. A very strong one at that.

The point is not that they both have the same type of prose. The point is that they both have excellent prose.

>while we don't call things Reynoldsian now do we?

You can do better than that. We can have this convo in 50 years.

[Anonymous No.3737616]

>>3737607
I think it lacks some kind of implication that /lit/ doesn't actually read the books it hates on.

[Anonymous No.3737624]

>>3737616
I know I've never even seen a copy of half the books I authoritatively declaim against here. All part of the fun.

[Anonymous No.3737630]

>>3737624
Well you shouldn't read bad books.

[Anonymous No.3737634]

>>3737613
Kafka evoked the mood he was going for better than Reynolds does. If you seriously disagree with that then there's no where else for this conversation to go, which is fine.

[Anonymous No.3737636]

I've never seen science fiction fans so eager to justify their taste. Typically, this kind of thread is to be expected from the fantasy kids. The image I had of the sci-fi fan was one of maturity and passion and intelligence, who didn't strive to belong to the literary elite, but rather, like their humble idols Asimov and Sagan, sought to expand the mind with the ideas of science and all its implications. This is a rather disappointing turn. With this thread you've stooped to the level of the petulant GRRM fanboy.

[Anonymous No.3737641]

>>3737616
How about now?

[Anonymous No.3737647]

>>3737641
Nah.
Wait a minute.

[Anonymous No.3737651]

>>3737636
Ironically if they stopped trying to justify their taste other people would probably be less patronizing and prejudiced.

[Anonymous No.3737664]

>>3737647
Here it is.

[Anonymous No.3737674]

>>3737664
I like it. still like mine better

[Anonymous No.3737705]

>>3737698

Here's our general folks.