Why is SciFi/fantasy viewed differently than other genres?
Herbie brought up a good point about mentioning to someone you write science fiction or fantasty. So often this genre is deemed as adolescent fiction, or adventure fiction, and therefore not worthy of literary statis.
Why do people think this. I have my own thoughts whch I'll toss out eventually.
One thing I don't tell people is that I'm a science fiction writer. I ONLY tell them I'm a writer, and then if they ask, I get more specific. I tell them the different things I have written or do write: newspaper articles, young adult/ childrens books, fiction, science fiction, etc. I'm a writer first, and then I let my ideas take me where they will, no matter what genre they may be.
I've never been one to focus on classifications, and I think the classification of science fiction has only served to dilute its literary value. Why is Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" worthy of the title "fiction" but Dick's "Do Android's Dream" or Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" get classified as scifi? They're all fiction. There's good fiction and bad fiction. There's good science fiction and bad science fiction. It's far too easy to classify all science fiction as unliterary.
I'll leave it at that for now, and jump in with more shortly
- Login to post comments
Re:Why is SciFi/fantasy viewed differently than other genres?
Yeah -- a good story is a good story, regardless of genre. Genre is just a framework. The plot and characters are what makes the story.
Make Captain Ahab a Starship Commander, make the whale a giant spacefaring alien, and Moby Dick becomes sci fi. (Then rewrite the rest of the book and make it less boring. I can't believe that book is considered "literature".)
It seems like speculative fiction is gaining respect. Sci fi was always split into "hard" and "mainstream". Hard sf appealed mainly to scientist types, and plots and characters took a backseat to the science, thus many of them had no literary value. Mainstream sf was pulp for the masses.
Now they are merging, I think because people in general have become more comfortable with science and technology. Books like Green Mars hit the best seller lists. (I found the series rather stale because the characters weren't that interesting, but as a vision of the future of space colonization, they were brilliant.)
Fantasy is still limping along. With the resurgence of Tolkien maybe it will get some more respect too.
I'm not a complete idiot -- some parts are missing.
Re:Why is SciFi/fantasy viewed differently than other genres?
Also, I like the term "speculative fiction" over sci fi and fantasy, because:
(1) it lumps the three oft-related genres of sci fi, fantasy, and horror into one genre. What is considered fantasy today was daily life or even cutting edge science a few hundred years ago.
(2) everyone speculates.
All stories have some degree of "what if?". However, to be considered "spec fiction", a story has to have some element of the fantastic. After that though, it's a story like any other.
Some thoughts:
When Dickens said, "Hmm... what a miserly curmudgeon was visited by three ghosts who showed him the error of his ways?" he was speculating. Was his story fantasy, horror, or science fiction? Horror, perhaps, or maybe fantasy. Then again, what is fantasy today was science yesterday. For its day, A Christmas Carol could have been sf. So let's just call it speculative fiction.
When Twain said, "Hmm... what if some guy cheated in a bullfrog jumping contest by stuffing his competitor's frog with lead shot?" he was speculating too.
So Charles Dickens and Mark Twain wrote speculative fiction. They didn't even have to hide it behind a new pseudonym, like a lot of authors do when they jump genres.
Of course, because of what else they wrote, and the fact they wrote over a century ago, it is considered "literature" now.
I'm not a complete idiot -- some parts are missing.
Re:Why is SciFi/fantasy viewed differently than other genres?
I agree 100% with what you have both said there. The reason that sci-fi isn't considered 'literary' is the same reason you don't see that many science-fiction films winning best film at the Oscars. I don't think a sci-fi/fantasy film has 'EVER' one the best film category.....has it??? LOTR might put that right next year after the third installment, but I wouldn't bet the house on it!
As for re-writing Moby Dick as a science-fiction story. I think it's already been done.
David Feintuch's "Midshipman's Hope" anyone.
Re:Why is SciFi/fantasy viewed differently than other genres?
I meant 'won' of course. lol
Re:Why is SciFi/fantasy viewed differently than other genres?
I think you're dead on with Speculative Fiction. It's the most all encompassing term, and the one I would choose too. It is still a classification thought, and if I haven't said it enough, I'm not a fan of classification.
I also agree with you about the Robinson books. I read "Red Mars", but couldn't bring myself to read the rest. He is a man of ideas, not spectacular writing. Niven is another good example of an author born of ideas, not a great writing skill. I think if you can really write, you'll sell. I think if you have really new ideas, you'll sell. And if you have really new ideas and can really write, your name will be remembered. How does that sound for spur of the moment philosophy?
Still more to come from me regarding this topic...
----
Life is a lot like caving: Most of the time you grope around in the dark.
Re:Why is SciFi/fantasy viewed differently than other genres?
Really great or popular books will transcend classification, but for the most part it is a necessary evil. I know people who absolutely refuse to read anything other than romance or mystery novels. A friend of mine recently tried science fiction, but she just didn't get it. She's too pragmatic to appreciate speculation. The same with me and romance novels--I just don't understand their appeal.
To err is human. I am not human.