Science fiction makes poorer readers

The Guardian published the following article about a study in the US. What :poop:.

Science fiction triggers 'poorer reading', study finds

Here's a link to the abstract:

Abstract to The Genre Effect

Yep, there's my good old country, on the tracks of anti-intellectualism! The study should have trashed if they started out with this:

"set out to measure how identifying a text as science fiction makes readers automatically assume it is less worthwhile"

They embedded an assumption into their hypothesis. That's a big no no in the scientific community!
 
I fear that your dismissal of detective stories as a genre falls into the same trap as those who dismiss SF as stories about spaceships, rayguns and BEMs.

Maybe... but I'm lazy enough to read the end of the book to find who did the crime rather than read the whole book... whilst some would call it an efficient use of time, others may call it cheating. Ahem... this is where I tiptoe away...
 
Well, what is good reading?

I do think there is such a thing, and would reject the idea that "good reading' is just a matter of opinion, etc etc, if anyone were saying that.

Good reading of fiction and poetry is alert, receptive, disinterested, fair-minded, etc.

Thus a good reader is alert to diction ("aureate" isn't quite the same thing as "golden"), to details without becoming lost in them, receptive to the artistic skill of the author or perhaps to the author's lack of artistic skill, disinterested (the reader doesn't use the work simply as a device to prompt a self-pleasing daydream), etc. A good reader doesn't go into a reading experience with a grudge just because a writer is thought to be conservative or progressive, etc.

And so on.

Good literature elicits and rewards good reading. Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote good literature.

The question then arises, Does science fiction elicit and reward good reading?

It's probably true that a lot of published sf hasn't particularly elicited and rewarded good reading. Much of it was never meant to be read with alertness to its language, for example; anything would do, so long as the adventures or the satirical points registered in the reader's mind. Much sf shows inattention to the implications of certain postulates of the plot and so on. No doubt a lot of sf, including some of the classics, appealed to readers largely because readers enjoyed a self-flattering daydream of being a superior creature, etc etc. But there is plenty of sf that, as may be seen with little effort, has pleased readers who, when reading other things, have shown themselves to be good readers, for example good readers of literary classics. In our time, take Michael Dirda. If a good reader finds undoubted works of science fiction good, then the burden of proof is on those who would dismiss the entire genre. They would have to make the case that, when reading sf, good readers suspend their usual reading habits: when reading sf, these good readers endure sloppy writing, feeble imagination in the deeper sense, etc. An interesting question would then arise: why do these people read and like some sf works? Is it, perhaps, simply because of nostalgia, as they reread favorites from undiscriminating youth? But what if they are reading new works, or older works that they've never read before -- and liking them?

There are good readers and poor readers, and good sf and poor sf.

Then another question would be: Do some works of sf provide experiences that we must admit are good -- and that only sf can supply? Here we have to focus on the best in the genre. You can supply a list of classics and recent works that you think will prove to be classics. If a fair-minded reader reads some of these and then says, "They did nothing for me," this reader may need to consider that this is more a fact of his/her own temperament, interests, and so on; he or she should be slow to say that such personal experience proves that no one else has such experience. The works that failed to please this readers may be possess real literary quality to which he or she happens to be unresponsive. The situation would be like that of someone I know who has a well-trained ear for choral music, enjoys it more than I do, but is generally not very responsive to natural beauty that does refresh me. The beauty of the singing and of nature is real, I would say (not "in the eye of the beholder"), but each of us is more responsive to one than to another.

The implication is that most good readers should be able to read and enjoy good science fiction, but that there are some readers who, as a rule, can read well, but happen to suffer from an inability to read good sf with satisfaction. Fine; there is plenty of good reading outside of sf.

Conversely, if you are a good reader of good sf, you should be able to enjoy good non-sf literature. if you read massive quantities of sf and can hardly endure anything else, you might ask yourself if you read even the sf you read, in a good way. I mean, you might be passing your time fairly harmlessly, but not having as much enjoyment of the possible richness even of sf as is possible.

Those are some thoughts jotted down this morning...
 
Just to point out the obvious: Reading leads to good readers.

It's not a guarantee, of course, that someone who begins reading regularly will become -- let's chuck the word "good" -- a thoughtful, perceptive reader. But you surely can't if you don't start reading. And s.f./fantasy/horror, indeed all genres "devalued" by those who who can't take genres seriously, for several generations have drawn in readers, kept them entertained and by doing so encouraged further reading. Some of these readers never leave the friendly confines of the genre that lured them in, but others do and through their reading gain a broader sense of the world.

If you want an example, I can't think of a better one than the New Wave writers who as kids devoured the s.f. magazines, then post-WWII went off to college, read broadly, then returned to write s.f. of a greater complexity than that of the writers they had read as kids.


Randy M.
 
A good story,well written, will always be a good story,well written. Why does everything have to be categorised and labelled?
I agree with Baylor.I could not read a "Mills and Boon" if my life depended on it.
 
I agree with the comments here that it could apply to other genres. It's a shame comments have closed on that Guardian article now.

I know I become a 'poorer reader' (I feel myself waning) if something immediately sets off signals that don't appeal to me, like a full on romance, rather than just romance being an aspect of a story in another genre I like.
 
I recently read a vampire short story which was more like Mills & Boone then Bram Stoker.
How I got to the last page beats me as my eyes were gazing over.
Don't even know why I bothered in the first place.
In the same vampire collection there was another one which read like fifty shades, yuk.
Most of the stories were pretty good, how on earth these two crept in beats me!
 
My eyes would gloss over too if I was taken out of my comfort zone and forced to read a Harlequin romance.

I know this is a late post on this thread but check out the Kindle SF or Ibooks SF stores and their full of Harlequin Romance quality crap.
Good solid hard SF got me reading Science, History and other such stuff. I find that people who seriously hate SF tend to read light fluffy drivel. Reading SF educated me.
 
I admit to likely prejudice but I think this is pseudo-intellectual and psychological bullsh**.

First of all we need to deal with 3 things, there is:

SCIENCE Fiction

and

Science Fiction

and there is

science FICTION.

SCIENCE Fiction has some real science and technology in it and highly likely future technology relative to the time it was written. I propose A Fall of Moondust by Clarke as an example.

Science Fiction has little real science but maintains a scientific attitude about how the imagined reality works, and no blatant flaws relative to known reality. I propose Komarr by Bujold as an example.

science FICTION is just a story in an imagined sci-fi reality with little or no concerns about real science, may outright defy known physics for the sake of the story. I propose Ancillary Justice by Leckie as an example. It just is not outright fantasy.

So in this psychological test what kind of science fiction were they using? I suspect people that want to diss SF either don't care about the differences or choose junk.

90% of everything is crud. - Sturgeons Law

psik
 
GRR Martin said....

"And for that matter, my favorite science fiction film of all time is not 2001: A Space Odyssey or Alien, or Star Wars, or Bladerunner, or (ugh) The Matrix, but rather Forbidden Planet, better known to us cognoscenti as The Tempest on Altair-4, and starring Leslie Nielsen, Anne Francis, Walter Pidgeon, and Bat Durston.
But how could this be? How could critics and theatre-goers and Shakespeareans possibly applaud these Bat Durston productions, ripp’d untimely as they are from their natural and proper settings?
The answer is simple. Motor cars or horses, tricorns or togas, ray-guns or six-shooters, none of it matters, so long as the people remain. Sometimes we get so busy drawing boundaries and making labels that we lose track of that truth.
Casablanca put it most succinctly. ‘It’s still the same old story, a fight for love and glory, a case of do or die.’
William Faulkner said much the same thing while accepting the Nobel Prize for Literature, when he spoke of ‘the old verities and truths of the heart, the universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed - love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice.’ The ‘human heart in conflict with itself,’ Faulkner said, ‘alone can make good writing, because only that is worth writing about.’
We can make up all the definitions of science fiction and fantasy and horror that we want. We can draw our boundaries and make our labels, but in the end it’s still the same old story, the one about the human heart in conflict with itself.
The rest, my friends, is furniture.
The House of Fantasy is built of stone and wood and furnished in High Medieval. Its people travel by horse and galley, fight with sword and spell and battleaxe, communicate by palantir or raven, and break bread with elves and dragons.
The House of Science Fiction is built of duralloy and plastic and furnished in Faux Future. Its people travel by starship and aircar, fight with nukes and tailored germs, communicate by ansible and laser, and break protein bars with aliens.
The House of Horror is built of bone and cobwebs and furnished in Ghastly Gothick. Its people travel only by night, fight with anything that will kill messily, communicate in screams and shrieks and gibbers, and sip blood with vampires and werewolves.
The Furniture Rule, I call it.
Forget the definitions. Furniture Rules.
Ask Phyllis Eisenstein, who has written a series of fine stories about a minstrel named Alaric, traveling through a medieval realm she never names.. . but if you corner her at a con she may whisper the name of this far kingdom. ‘Germany.’ The only fantastic element in the Alaric stories is teleportation, a psi ability generally classed as a trope of SF. Ah, but Alaric carries a lute, and sleeps in castles, and around him are lords with swords, so ninety-nine readers out of every hundred, and most publishers as well, see the scries as fantasy. The Furniture Rules.
Ask Walter Jon Williams. In Metropolitan and City on Fire he gives us a secondary world as fully imagined as Tolkien’s Middle Earth, a world powered entirely by magic, which Walter calls ‘plasm.’ But because the world is a single huge decaying city, rife with corrupt politics and racial tensions, and the plasm is piped and metered by the plasm authority, and the sorcerers live in high rises instead of castles, critics and reviewers and readers alike keep calling the books science fiction. The Furniture Rules.
Peter Nicholls writes, ‘... SF and fantasy, if genres at all, are impure genres . . . their fruit may be SF, but the roots are fantasy, and the flowers and leaves perhaps something else again.’ If anything, Nicholls does not go far enough, for westerns and mysteries and romances and historicals and all the rest are impure as well. What we really have, when we get right down to the nitty gritty, are stories. Just stories.
Fantasy? Science fiction? Horror?
I say it’s a story, and I say the hell with it.
 
They may all be, just stories, but I like a story in which it is obvious the author cared. I like a story that flows. A story with craftsmanship. Stories with heart and soul.
A lot of the stories available on Amazon Kindle or iBooks are just drivel. Written to a list of rules that must be followed. I would not doubt that some writers have all those old pulp romance stories and they just rewrite them to fit the genre they currently think can earn them some money. Those stories have no craft in them, they are just manufactured and assembled like cheap furniture.
So, yes Waylander, it is all just furniture. But, like furniture, some you keep because it has a quality all its own and some you toss like yesterday's garbage.
 
As far as I'm concerned, science fiction and literary fiction are the only strands of fiction that can really make people think.

well-written fiction, period, can make you think. science fiction can make you think in a particular way (and a valuable way) in a particular way but you could say the same about historical fiction and literary fiction and experimental fiction, that those forms can do what others forms can't.
 
I knew it was here somewhere! Just providing some interesting background to the current discussion.
 

Back
Top